Talk:Battle of Huế

message: Altered result in the infobox to conform with Template:Infobox military conflict. The bullet points should go too. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: What kind of reason for violating MOS:NOTUSA is ? An article can never be modified, even if parts are against global community consensus, once it becomes a GA? — MarkH21talk 07:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What violates MOS:NOTUSA in the version that you changed? You changed US to American, the MOS says nothing about that. Mztourist (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The only things that I changed were for the following part of MOS:NOTUSA:  If you’d prefer  over  where an adjective is needed, then we can use that as well. — MarkH21talk 07:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnecessary changes as US is not too informal as used. As I said, this recently passed GA review and neither the reviewer then, nor I now, believe that such changes are required. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You might not think that something like  (which isn’t even consistent with the  used in the rest of the article, as required by MOS:NOTUSA) is informal, but it is, and that’s the point of that part of MOS:NOTUSA.Pinging GA reviewer .  — MarkH21talk 07:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK if you really have nothing better to do. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting general question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#When aren’t US/U.S. abbreviations too informal?.Your snide remark is unnecessary and not appreciated. — MarkH21talk 07:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly feel this is something very important, which I don't: WP:WIN. Mztourist (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you letting it go if you don’t care. The  was a silly attempt at a put-down though. — MarkH21talk 07:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not letting go, I'm saying that I don't understand why you feel this is so important, when there are so many other more important things to do on and off WP. Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don’t think it’s important, then why are you adamantly against it? Seriously feels like some ownership issues. — MarkH21talk 08:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You have found this page and decided to make changes to it that I don't agree with and so you've chosen to elevate the issue to noticeboards and bringing in the GA reviewer to try to get support for your position seems like you are trying to WP:WIN here. Mztourist (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Re the GAN process. NOTUSA is not one of the five MoS guidelines included in GA criterion 1b, so so far as passing GAN is concerned whether or not the article met NOTUSA is moot. "US" or "U.S." should, indeed, be standardised. I commented in the GANR "Either U.S. or US is fine, but could you only use one variant throughout? There may be other examples." It would seem that I then missed an example in my final read through: errare humanum est. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MOS:NOTUSA]] violations 

message: The first sentence of the lead paragraph doesn’t really define much about the battle or give much context, while the second sentence of the lead is a confusing mess of blue links with a comma-separated list following two comma-separated subordinate clauses: 
It seems pertinent to mention the Tết Offensive in the first paragraph and the countries involved before listing the military branches involved and number of battalions. The dates & location were also cluttering the list sentence, and could easily be moved to another part of the first paragraph.
Since it’s a major edit, I’d propose the following lead paragraph: 
The dates could also be moved to  instead of the parenthetical.
 let me know your thoughts. — MarkH21talk 08:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its fine as it is. Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no more thoughts or discussion to offer at all? — MarkH21talk 08:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to offer anything more. You say its cluttered, I don't agree with you and I don't think your proposal is an improvement. Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then I’ll open WP:DR because there’s no arguing through your WP:OWNERSHIP and refusal to articulate anything. — MarkH21talk 08:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have you come to this page and decided that it needed your "improvements", when there are so many pages on WP that seriously need improvement? Then having met some resistance with me you are spending all this time arguing with me to try to get your way, first noticeboards and now DR. Mztourist (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should you somehow have priority in editing here with your preferred version and other editors should go elsewhere? You don’t own the article, and you don’t have priority on any articles over other editors. Your insistence that other editors spend their time away from this article and attempt to shoo me away is disruptive.The noticeboard post was also a general question, not a request to resolve the issue in the preceding section here. Editors disagree on what improvements can be made, and disagreements are resolved by dispute resolution. Disagreements are not resolved by a priority claim by one of the editors. — MarkH21talk 08:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: All this time you're spending arguing over what? Is this really important? Is this really improving the encyclopedia? Mztourist (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on the lead of a major article (and a GA at that) is improving the encyclopedia. Your unwillingness to discuss and your attempts to shoo others away is not improving the encyclopedia. — MarkH21talk 08:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You think that your work is improving the encyclopedia, I don't. Certainly all your arguing here and trying to harass me on my own Talk page isn't an improvement. Mztourist (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decluttering the lead paragraph 

message: Should the MOS:NOTUSA clause:  be applied to the article? In other words, should instances of  and  be replaced with  or  where another country's full name (e.g.  or ) is mentioned in the same sentence?
Please respond with Yes or No, with justifications. Thanks. 07:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on the application of [[MOS:NOTUSA]] 

message: *No further changes required, the page as it stands now is fully MOS:NOTUSA compliant. "May be too informal" is subjective and using U.S is commonly accepted particularly when the other country's name cannot be abbreviated or doesn't have a commonly known abbreviation.Mztourist (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Comment: This RfC stems from the discussion in the section #MOS:NOTUSA violations above and . — MarkH21talk 07:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Which of the following versions of the first lead paragraph should be implemented?
Please indicate your preferred option by number. Suggested modifications are also welcome. Thanks. 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: — MarkH21talk 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

text: And what does that mean? MarkH21 can be frustrated but I can't? He can just keep reframing the RFC? Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise - I was editing on a laptop for a while earlier and my response somehow went into the wrong section. "It means that I'm not here to decide which is the best wording. This is a dispute that can be resolved between you and appears to be close to doing so. Deb (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

text:  If you had offered alternatives during the talk page discussion MarkH21 had initiated prior to the filing of this RfC - instead of stonewalling the discussion - reframing the RfC wouldn't have been necessary. No reason to be frustrated about such a thing; compromise is part of dispute resolution. MrClog (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am discussing what MarkH21 has done here (i.e. within this Request for comment) constantly reframing this RFC. Rather than continuing to berate me about what I should or shouldn't have done before, please address the issue at hand and advise if MarkH21 reframing the RFC is acceptable behaviour. Mztourist (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the problem with adding more options to an RfC at such an early stage if people feel a need for one? I agree there shouldn't normally be a need for it as all options have normally been mentioned at the talk page before, but well, as I said, your stonewalling is responsible for that. And maybe you have to rewrite your vote a bit; consensus building takes time and effort. --MrClog (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: MarkH21 added more options 3 times after opening the RFC survey, forcing me to revise my comments 3 times, is that proper behaviour in an RFC? Mztourist (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Read the page, 3 US Marine battalions and 11 ARVN/Marine battalions fought in the city, 4 US Army battalions fought in the countryside. Your Option 6 refers only to urban fighting which is only part of the battle. The US Marines battle was urban and so that's what they wrote about and developed doctrine from. Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. I’d be fine with removing the link & word , although it’s not technically incorrect in that the actual recapture of the city (in the narrow sense) was urban by definition. But it would still be nice to mention it as a major element of the battle in some way. Also, the minor change can be made to replace  with . — MarkH21talk 05:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

text: What do you mean define the links? Do you mean to wikilink the first instances of those terms in the article? Or define the abbreviations? Something like ? — MarkH21talk 09:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on wording the first paragraph of the lead 

message: *Option 6 >> Option 4 >> Option 5 > Option 1: There's a combination of issues with the first option and important context that is added in the other three options:
*:Issues with Option 1: The first sentence paragraph doesn't really define much about the battle or give much context, while the second sentence of the lead is a confusing mess of blue links with a comma-separated list following two comma-separated subordinate clauses. There's also a mismatch in the second sentence between numerical numbers ( vs. ).
*:Option 5: resolves some of the issues described above. It still has an extraneous subordinate clause in the second-sentence list, a numeral-number word mismatch, and the first sentence structure with  is slightly awkward. I agree though, that the  from the first four options is unnecessary.
*:Other reasons for Option 4/6: It's very pertinent to mention the important context of the Tết Offensive in the first paragraph, and to mention the countries involved before listing the military branches involved and number of battalions. The dates & location were also cluttering the list sentence, and could easily be moved to another part of the first paragraph. I'd prefer the dates in the parentheses but that's not a big deal.
*:Option 6: Establishes more context surrounding the significance of the event per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH with a (very) brief summary of its progression. I also don't really think that the list of battalion numbers is needed in the very first paragraph. There's slight redundancy with a sentence or two from the rest of the lead, but those can be removed/modified if this lead paragraph is implemented.
:— MarkH21talk 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Comment: This RfC stems from the discussion in the section #Decluttering the lead paragraph above and . — MarkH21talk 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And what does that mean? MarkH21 can be frustrated but I can't? He can just keep reframing the RFC? Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise - I was editing on a laptop for a while earlier and my response somehow went into the wrong section. "It means that I'm not here to decide which is the best wording. This is a dispute that can be resolved between you and appears to be close to doing so. Deb (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

text:  If you had offered alternatives during the talk page discussion MarkH21 had initiated prior to the filing of this RfC - instead of stonewalling the discussion - reframing the RfC wouldn't have been necessary. No reason to be frustrated about such a thing; compromise is part of dispute resolution. MrClog (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am discussing what MarkH21 has done here (i.e. within this Request for comment) constantly reframing this RFC. Rather than continuing to berate me about what I should or shouldn't have done before, please address the issue at hand and advise if MarkH21 reframing the RFC is acceptable behaviour. Mztourist (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the problem with adding more options to an RfC at such an early stage if people feel a need for one? I agree there shouldn't normally be a need for it as all options have normally been mentioned at the talk page before, but well, as I said, your stonewalling is responsible for that. And maybe you have to rewrite your vote a bit; consensus building takes time and effort. --MrClog (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: MarkH21 added more options 3 times after opening the RFC survey, forcing me to revise my comments 3 times, is that proper behaviour in an RFC? Mztourist (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Read the page, 3 US Marine battalions and 11 ARVN/Marine battalions fought in the city, 4 US Army battalions fought in the countryside. Your Option 6 refers only to urban fighting which is only part of the battle. The US Marines battle was urban and so that's what they wrote about and developed doctrine from. Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. I’d be fine with removing the link & word , although it’s not technically incorrect in that the actual recapture of the city (in the narrow sense) was urban by definition. But it would still be nice to mention it as a major element of the battle in some way. Also, the minor change can be made to replace  with . — MarkH21talk 05:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: you have to define all the links that you deleted in the lede. Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean define the links? Do you mean to wikilink the first instances of those terms in the article? Or define the abbreviations? Something like ? — MarkH21talk 09:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-RfC

message: The text, , cannot be found in the reference of Bowden (2017), pages of 42–44. The citation is therefore moved to the preceding sentences that are extensively cited in the source. I will support the quoted claim with other reliable sources though. Ltncanada (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material not mentioned in the source