Talk:Battle of Ban Me Thuot

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Battle of Buon Me Thuot → Battle of Ban Me Thuot — In keeping with convention that battles retain their historical names and spellings (e.g., Battle of Iwo Jima, not Iōtō; Siege of Antioch, not Antakya; Siege of Leningrad, not St. Petersburg), this should be moved to Ban Me Thuot. Alternatively, it should be moved to Buon MA Thuot, since that is the current transliteration for this town.

Elaboration: During the Vietnam War, this town was known as Ban Me Thuot (or Banmethuot), and that is how this battle is named in most of the literature. Since the war, a new transliteration for this Montagnard town has taken hold, Buon Ma Thuot, which is where our article on the town is located. It's illogical for Wikipedia to have a name that doesn't match the historical spelling, nor quite match the current spelling.

For evidence, Google Books is probably better than Google Web:
 * Ban Me Thuot
 * Buon Me Thuot
 * Buon Ma Thuot

The same comparison on regular Google:
 * Ban Me Thuot
 * Buon Me Thuot
 * Buon Ma Thuot

(Despite the effort to exclude Wikipedia, most results from the middle search do in fact derive from Wikipedia.)

If you Gsearch just on the town, the Web's post-1995 bias gives a lopsided advantage to the new spelling:
 * Ban Me Thuot
 * Buon Me Thuot
 * Buon Ma Thuot

Verdict: Ban Me Thuot! Fortunately, most incoming links can be changed at one fell swoop by editing the Campaignbox Vietnam War template. — Groggy Dice T | C 07:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 09:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments for further improvements
Hi, good work so far. I have undertaken a light copy edit of the article. There were a number of tense issues (for instance switching between past and present tense). I believe I have found most of them, but may have missed some. As such, I would suggest before taking it further, that you might try to get someone from the Guild of Copy Editors to go through the article. I have a couple of other suggestions for improvement:


 * is there any way that the infobox can be tweaked so that is divided evenly down the middle? Currently, the South Vietnamese side is wider than the North Vietnamese and looks a little lopsided;
 * the References should be presented as surname, first name, e.g. Dawson, Alan;
 * is there a year/date of publication for the Dawson source?
 * ISBN or OCLC numbers could be added for the References. These can be found at www.worldcat.org or Google books;
 * in the Notes, the style is a little inconsistent, for instance sometimes you have "pp." for multiple pages (e.g. "Duong Hao, pp. 149–151), but then later you use "pp." for single pages (e.g. "Nguyen Van Bieu, pp.292"). I'd suggest just using "p." for single pages and "pp." for multiple page ranges. This seems to be the standard at A or FA.

Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, I am working on your suggestions now.Canpark (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ID of the Tank in the picture
That looks more like T-62 than T-54. Note the shape of the turret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.241.4 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)