This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
Is the image being used for this article really show the result of the bombing? There is no 6 story building in that image. I found this image: http://www.1stmob.com/op24.htm of what appears to be the actual hotel post bombing. You can clearly see the first story is completely destroyed. If the image in the article can not be proven to be of the actual bombing, it should be removed as it implies a greater level of destruction than what occurred. Imbcmdth (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An E-6 is not an officer in the United States Army (or its equivalent an officer in any other country's military). It is an enlisted personnel. I'm not going to change it, or quibble over the term "non-commissioned officer", but it's a mistake, clear and simple, in a featured article.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look why this article use mdy dates when dmy is in use for Vietnamese articles. I have found that the article's author, YellowMonkey, first used a date with this edit (mdy format) in February 2009. At that time, the Vietnam article still used mdy dates; hence at the time, that was the correct thing to do. Things have moved on in the intervening 15 years, but the date format for this article hasn't changed. I shall update it to dmy dates now. Schwede6601:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) That guideline supports the status quo of the beginning, which often is a rushed unsophisticated version (so not a good guideline in my book). It is a guideline, no more. I'd also go for the change in the name of consistency within a topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DATETIES seems to be a relevant guideline, as MOS:DATERET says "unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page." If someone (likely non-Venezuelan) started a Venezuelan article using mdy, for example, that would be against DATETIES, as dmy is used in Venezuela, and DATETIES would hopefully prevail over DATERET as the article evolved. That's how I read the two guidelines; perhaps the guidelines need better clarification. (I'm a bit embarrassed for not noticing this when I promoted the Featured article, but perhaps back then all the Vietnam articles were using mdy ... can't recall.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
