Misplaced Pages

talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:50, 15 December 2012 edit༆ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,243 edits →Capitalizing Province etc.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:29, 11 July 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,034,232 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(101 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Vietnam |class=NA}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 8: Line 7:
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Vietnam }}
}} }}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot II |age=2 |units=months |index= }} {{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot II |age=2 |units=months |index= }}


== RfC ==
== Remove guideline header? ==
{{archivetop|result= The result is ''No Consensus''. There is a very minor opinion here that may not reflect a broader opinion if there had been more participation. This opinion ''leans'' toward the proposals banner being restored. However, as the comments from some of the respondents are non committal and simply link to other discussions, there is no clear outcome.

{{quotation|This guideline documents an English Misplaced Pages naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.}}
Haven't removed it but I don't see how this header can stand given that this is a 1-man essay at odds with RfC majority and RM results. In any case I have restored the essay header which is more representative (look at edit history) ] (]) 01:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:There were dozens of people involved in the RfC, but no one else even suggested demoting the page. ] (]) 03:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
::No I think most editors would have been happy if the "guideline" had simply accepted the view of the RfC majority and stopped pushing a disruptive hobby horse. Then it might have been "elevated" to guideline status once there was support. The page cannot be "demoted" when it has never had any community approval in the first place. ] (]) 03:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:::Who elected you to speak for "the community"? This page conforms to ] and ], both very well established guidelines. ] (]) 04:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
::::That's the point, I wasn't elected obviously, '''you were'''. Otherwise how do we explain that you are completely ignoring the majority of opinion of the RfC you yourself initiated. Seriously where on[REDACTED] is there any mechanism which doesn't end up with Kauffner's opinion counting for more than a majority of other editors? ] (]) 09:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::This type of personal criticism is most unhelpful. After all the articles you have moved on your own, you're a fine one to be going on like this. It is clear by now that your only interest in Vietnamese place names, V-pop, K-pop, Korean royalty, etc. etc. is that you following me around and post nonsense like this for reasons of spite. ] (]) 05:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::*If IIO thinks that he can improve it, or even create a better guideline, he's free to propose this. Otherwise his opposition to other people doing so can only be spite—or maybe he thinks there's no need for any guidelines, as he and his army can get away with ignoring them? ] (]) 05:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::LittleBenW, the 23 editors in the RfC who supported previous en.wp consensus on using Vietnamese names for Vietnamese people and places are not my "private army" - the were simply editors who saw the RfC notice without being canvassed. ] (]) 23:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

:Kauffner, I am more than happy with the 23 majority view as expressed in the RfC. ] (]) 11:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

== VIETCON shortcut removed ==

{{shortcut|WP:VIETCON}}
This recent 18:21, 16 October 2012‎ shortcut creation doesn't have any consensus. There is no agreed convention for Naming conventions Vietnamese. ] (]) 01:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


:Whether it's essay or a convention, it can still have a shortcut. ] (]) 03:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:*That's true. ] is just a one-person essay, but it has the misleading shortcut ] to suggest that it's a guideline. But the list of references is similar to that listed here.   ] (]) 03:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
::That is true. But in that case (i) ] is simply an essay of fact, (ii) it is an essay which is parallel to a reality reflected in the en.wp practice which is accepted by all except for all but a tiny handful of editors, and that tiny noisy handful being in the main editors who don't contribute to affected bio or geo articles anyway, (iii) there is no attempt by the author of an essay to misrepresent it as a guideline. In this case we have an essay counter RfC and RM consensus presenting itself as a guideline. Or a guideline stub which has been essayized, either way. ] (]) 03:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
::*Whether (in your opinion) it is an "essay of fact" or not, it doesn't have consensus and has not been accepted as a guideline. The shortcut name "DGUIDE" surely misrepresents it as a guideline. Feel free to discuss improvements to "Naming conventions (Vietnamese)", but simply replacing it with one sentence "We will use diacritics everywhere, without any supporting references, because not to do so is unethical" is neither an improvement nor true and acceptable. ] (]) 06:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
::::See above. ] (]) 09:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
== Essay tag removed again ==

I see the essay tag has been removed again, well beyond 3RR. It should be restored to make clear that it is the work of one editor at odds with his own recent RfC result. ] (]) 23:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
:What I've done is rather than restore with essay, replace with
{{under discussion|section}}
:The questionable template below, is still in place, though it's not clear that this draft has ever been adopted, or even if it has, it is evident that as it currently stands it is counter the recent RfC.
{{Misplaced Pages subcat guideline|naming convention|Vietnamese}}
:A lot of other pages in ] such as ] have the heading template
{{historical}}
:Although that wouldn't be totally the case here. As some of the general geographical content may have the support of editors? Ideally a header template halfway between the two, or simply the discussion tags at the moment would perhaps be best.
:] (]) 00:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I made some edits to the page:
:02:35, 3 December 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+962)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) ‎ (→‎Factors to consider: Sources may vary between different editions. For example the original edition of the ..) (top)
:02:20, 3 December 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+553)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) ‎ (→‎Anglicized vs. Vietnamese forms: added "some English coinages, such as Ho Chi Minh Trail, which is known as the "Trường Sơn trail" ("Long Mountain trail") in Vietnam")
:02:12, 3 December 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+71)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) ‎ (edited to "When selecting a title, consider Misplaced Pages guidelines on sources WP:RS.")
] (]) 02:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

== Disambiguation by Vietnamese name ==

If the essay is ever going to be put forward for consensus support to advance to guideline status, it should address the issue of disambiguation by Vietnamese name as ]:
{{quotation|'''Thanh Hóa''' (清化) ({{audio|Thanh Hoa.ogg|listen|help=no}}) can refer to:
* ] (city)
* ]
* ] in Quang Binh province
* ]

'''Thạnh Hóa''' (晟化) can refer to:
* ] in Long An province
}}
Yig Mgo, as you noted this, do you have a view on how to handle this? ] (]) 23:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
:A pronunciation guide and Chinese in a Vietnamese disambiguation page? A DAB is supposed to include only what is needed for navigation. Many of these subjects didn't even exist in 1918, so they may never have had Sino-Viet names. ] (]) 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
::We'll see what Yig Mgo says, it was his question. ] (]) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
:Yes. The page with title ] must be a disambiguation, and all other pages must have diacritics in their names. Against, I'm tired with some people who keep discriminating Vietnamese diacritics. ༆ (]) 18:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

== Not the Vietnam War project ==

These are the conventions for Wikiproject Vietnam, not for a Vietnam War project. So I don't think that giving a special mention to ''The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'' can be justified. In any case, don't we want to follow the ? This edition uses conventional English-language spellings. As this example illustrates, there is no trend toward increased use of Vietnamese diacritics in English, at least not off-Wiki. ] (]) 13:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
:It serves in the text as an example that using the Vietnamese alphabet may vary even between different editions of the same source. ] (]) 14:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

== Intro ==

The intro provides some basic information about Vietnamese writing. Many editors assume that Vietnamese is written in Chinese characters, so there are various misconceptions that need to be addressed. This material has been in the guideline for quite a while now, and I don't recall anyone complaining about it in the RfC. The official result of the RfC was "no consensus." In addition, I would think that one "under discussion" tag would be sufficient. ] (]) 02:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
:The result of the RfC was overwhelming opposition to your proposal with 23 of the non-canvassed respondents supporting spelling Vietnamese places and people with Vietnamese alphabet and should be reflected in this draft naming conventions. I say draft since it has never been adopted, has it? ] (]) 03:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is this:
{{Misplaced Pages subcat guideline|naming convention|Vietnamese}}
When was this adopted? And even if it was adopted, given recent RfC support for use of Vietnamese alphabet, this tag is misleading. ] (]) 03:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

:Your method of vote counting is arbitrary, and no one appointed you vote counter. It was a close vote, and it was reasonably closed as no consensus. No one in the RfC even suggested the sort of changes that you are making. At this point, it is just another old discussion anyway. ] (]) 04:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
::Kauffner
::23 is 23, 23 voted for use of Vietnamese alphabet.
::Only 10 non-canvassed voters voted against use of Vietnamese alphabet. Plus 6 more directly canvassed by yourself, = 16.
::That is not a blank cheque to do the opposite.
::As it stands that recent RfC is more valid than your 1 vote. Do you understand this? ] (]) 04:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Many editors participated in the RfC, but no one else suggested that the status of the page be changed, nor did anyone propose any of the other changes that you have made in the last week. ] (]) 15:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
::::Hi,
::::The edit history shows a 1-man essay, not an adopted Misplaced Pages Naming Convention.
::::If you weren't willing to accept the views of others you should not have opened the question to RfC, but you did and 23 is 23 is 23, 23 voted for use of Vietnamese alphabet. 23 voting for use of the Vietnamese alphabet puts into question the content you have written here. To be honest it would perhaps be better if you simply moved this page to your sandbox. But as it stands we have had an RfC and now if the page is to be put in a shape that can eventually be agreed on then at the very least this page should not say the exact opposite of the RfC majority.
:::::Do you understand this?
:::::] (]) 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

*It makes no difference how many people wrote it. It was stable for over a year despite the RfC and numerous editors commenting on it. It should be not revised with a ]. (A guideline's "stability and consistency are important to the community.") Taking off the intro and putting in a second discussion tag doesn't even make sense. ] (]) 19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

::Kauffner, it makes an enormous difference, and it simply wasn't discussed, nor adopted as a guideline. ], whether it is the 23 majority on RfC or 3x people Agathoclea and Dr Blofeld's comments here now override ], or 1x person consensus. {{fontcolor|red|yellow|If you want to move this back to your personal sandbox then do so.}} But if you want to propose it for guideline status at some future point it must reflect the recent RfC and WP:VN RMs. ] (]) 04:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Which Misplaced Pages guideline was "adopted"? It's not a big deal to me whether the page has guideline header or not. I'm not a big fan of headers myself, and I'm fine with no header. The header issue did not even come up in the RfC, so other editors do not seem to have a problem with it. Despite the fact that you've canvassed people, they still did not come and express support for any of the changes you made. The RfC was "no consensus" and recent RMs have gone both ways. The guideline never said that the titles had to be written without diacritics. It just explained the factors involved. The references are not selectively chosen. At least one uses diacritics. I reverted to a version of the page you edited, something that you contributed several items to. ] (]) 05:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
::::If it's not a big deal good. The guideline header stays off. ] (]) 06:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::I notice that you are talking ''Frommer'''s and ''Lonely Planet'' very seriously as geography references over at ]. We can certainly use them here. ] (]) 11:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::Yes I am. ] will vary from context to context. In the case of the Balkans ] includes Frommers, Lonely Planet, EU Publications. In the case of Vietnam ] may include other things. Anyway, thank you for having agreed to keep the guideline box off. I hope we can have a productive collegiate discussion with more active editors involved.
:::::::Now, having made progress on this, what about the other issue - agreeing to use WP:RM process for moves? ] (]) 15:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

==More moves contrary RfC and contrary RMs==
Kauffner, I notice that you are again moving geo articles contrary to the RfC result and contrary to the RMs at ] and ]. Do you understand that moving articles contrary to RfC and RM results is controversial? ] (]) 03:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
:No he did not move contrary to the RMs. He simply "forgot" that that he removed the talkpage notice refering to said RM first. ] (]) 08:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
::I'm afraid the timing of the two-bites of the cherry with db-G6 makes it a bit difficult to believe that removing the same RM twice before moving articles counter RM twice was an accident. What would be good would be a coherent answer in normal human-to-human conversation from Kauffner to explain this. ] (]) 10:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Culture
* ] 3 January 2007
* ] 28 January 2007
* ] 10 July 2012
* ] 9 August 2012
* ] 9 August 2012
* ] 9 August 2012
* ] 16 August 2012
* ] 24 August 2012
* ] 4 October 2012


Recommendation: Editors with an interest in ] should relist/restart this RfC which should be more widely publicised in order to attract sufficient participation to determine a clear consensus. ] (]) 14:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)}}
Geography
This page was changed 11 February 2011 . Page appears never to have had either a proposal, nor a seconder, and principally reflects the views of 1 editor. (Q1) should ] be returned from ] to ] until it has gone through a consensus editing, proposal and adoption process? (Q2) if the answer to Q1 is '''yes''' then Q2 should the {proposed} banner be restored, or alternatively replaced with the {historical} banner? ] (]) 16:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
* ] 6 July 2010
-Note: ] page header states:
* ] 7 August 2011
{{quotation|Those pages that have not received general consensus should be categorized in ]. For a short introduction on how to go from proposal to naming conventions guideline, see ] and the intro of ].}}
* ] 24 August 2012
* As long as the proposal has no wider acceptance it should not be classed as a guideline. ] (]) 08:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
* ] 21 November 2012
* Q1: return to proposals. Q2: {historical} banner restored until there is more activity and revisions on this page, leading to a broader RFC.--] (]) 01:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


:The bot has just pulled this after 30 days, if there are no objections I'll post a request for an admin to close. ] (]) 01:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Biography
* I found this RfC from ]. {{user|Kauffner}}, who changed the guideline, that he did it on the basis of the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vietnam&diff=prev&oldid=413311493#Consensus_points. {{user|In ictu oculi}}, I have not read that lengthy discussion, but if it didn't support the principles in this proposal, then I agree that the guideline banner should be removed and the proposals banner restored. ] (]) 08:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
* ] → Huu Phuc Dang 16 July 2011
*There was an RFC with a large participation ]. No one questioned the guideline status of this page at that time. ] (]) 03:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
* ] 30 September 2011
{{archivebottom}}
* ] 24 August 2012
==Need to run it again==
* ] 24 August 2012
], ], ] please note close above. Antonio Hazard was blocked per ] at 01:33 2 Sept. ] (]) 05:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
* ] 4 October 2012
:Or maybe fix the thing first? In any case I've deleted entirely the diacritics section which was the main problem as being the main 1-person conflict with RfCs and RMs. I also added capital P and D for province and district (per earlier discussion here, and checked with Colonies Chris, could probably check further). Also moved the ]/] material to the end. ] (]) 10:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
* ] 20 October 2012
::Well the problem was that the page did not reflect consensus and therefore should not have been deemed a guideline. Now the disruption has officially ended it is easier to change the guidline to actually reflect consensus. ] (]) 10:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
:::Yes I think you're right, and it's needless duplication to re-run a RfC to remove one editor's addition of a guideline tag from a page that never had a RfC and then run another RfC to really adopt as a guideline. Besides, it'll be 2 weeks before the ] RfC is closed, we don't know what the outcome will be yet. As you say, better to fix it. ] (]) 10:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
==Feedback about short name of Vietnamese people==
In Administrative Documents, I think you should not use only the last name of Vietnamese. It is very weird for Vietnam names.
Each word of Vietnam has only one syllable, Vietnam are not Western countries. Western countries have words with many syllables. So, if you call Khiêm or Minh, it is too short too too short.
For example, the name ] have 5 syllables and it is very well for a short name. But in Vietnam, when you write the short name "Khiêm", it is very very short and weird. We should write full name for Vietnamese names if the full name is not too long (from 2-3 words in Vietnam's name), such as ], ], Trần Minh Mẫn, ]. In Vietnam, you can not call ] by Du or call ] by Huệ. It does not respect them. They are the famous people of Vietnam and contribute for Vietnam. So you must call full names for the respecting. In Vietnam, we have many people named Huệ and Du, and you can not call a too short name by Huệ or Du, it is not suitable for Vietnamese culture. We are Vietnam, not Western nations, please repect. Thank you.
At the similar, footballers of Vietnam contribute for Vietnam, so you should call them by full name to distinguish a person to a different person and respect them.
For a long name (from 4 words in name to over), such as ], ], Nguyễn Trần Thị Minh Duyên you can call them by Huyền My, Kỳ Duyên, Minh Duyên for the short names. That is OK.
But you can not call ] - a famous person of Vietnam, you can not call her by a short name "Thị Ninh" because in Vietnam, no one call name of a woman by "Thị+last name".Especially, ] is a politician and all of Vietnam call her by full name, not "Ninh" or "Thị Ninh".
With the men's names, such as Trần Văn Cường, Trần Văn Lực you can call them by Văn Cường, Văn Lực.
In Vietnam, men usually have the middle name "Văn", women usually have the middle name "Thị". But no one call a girl or a woman by the short name "Thị+last name". Otherwise, with men, if they have middle name "Văn", you can call them by "Văn+last name" in the Administrative Documents.
Thanks for watching! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)</small>


The above is an incomplete list. Should have others added in. ] (]) 06:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC) :I also agree with this comment. You should mention a person by his full name "Ngo Bao Chau" or "Mr Chau", not only Chau.] (]) 07:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


:There's a natural desire to avoid repetition in a biography by shortening the name. For Western names, the usual practice of this encyclopedia is to use only the family name, a simplification of the traditional formulation "Mr./Mrs. LastName". As ] points out, referring to an individual by their given name alone (e.g. "Diệm" rather than "Mr. Diệm") is just as informal in Vietnamese as it would be in English. What is the general practice in English-language literature? At a cursory glance, I see examples both of repeating the full name each time and of using just the given name (as recommended by this proposal), but a more comprehensive review would be welcome. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 06:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
==Capitalizing Province etc.==
== "Misplaced Pages:NCVIET" listed at ] ==
{{shortcut|WP:VIETPLACE}}
]
"Where possible, articles on cities (''thành phố'') and towns (''thị xã'') use <nowiki>]</nowiki>. Where disambiguation is required, <nowiki>]</nowiki> is used. Urban districts (''quận'') and rural distrists (''huyện'') are given in the form <nowiki>]</nowiki>. Where disambiguation is required, <nowiki>]</nowiki> is used."
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] <small>(please use '''&#123;&#123;reply|ItsPugle}}''')</small> 03:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
:Can I ask, where is the link to where this was agreed, and who discussed it? ] (]) 10:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
== "Misplaced Pages:VIETCON" listed at ] ==
:: ...what kind of edit summary is this? Kauffner, you've been asked a question. Please answer it. ] (]) 12:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
]
:::What can I say? I was entertaining my girl and the MOS emergency slipped my mind. If you are trying to get it changed, this is the wrong place to bring it up. This style was Dr. Blofeld's idea. No one objected, so I put it in. "Words denoting political divisions—from empire, republic, and state down to ward and precinct—are capitalized when they follow a name," according to ''Chicago Manual of Style'', §8.55. ] (]) 14:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] <small>(please use '''&#123;&#123;reply|ItsPugle}}''')</small> 03:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
::::I respect Dr. Blofeld, but the question is: ''where is the link to where this was agreed, and who discussed it?'' Thank you. ] (]) 15:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
==Relevant RMs August 2020==
::::: is the diff. ] (]) 15:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The entire en.wp corpus uses full Latin alphabet diacritics through all titles and article bodies. This was established 10 years ago and kept the peace since. But for reference noting two recent RMs challenging this:
::::::Yes, if a place needs dabbing always use highest level division first, province. However if there is more than one place of the same name within a given province, dab by xxx, District. If there is more than one within a District use xxxx, (commune). OK? I prefer capital letters for Province and District, most seem to agree, although India and one or two others are an exception. (However I'm doing Turkey which is all dabbed for a reason to ease the gap between English and Turkish wikipedia. Eventually those which do not need a suffix which be moved to plain names so ignore what I'm doing for Turkey.) Hope this helps and look forward to seeing some coverage of Vietnam!♦ ] 10:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
*] 7 Aug to 23 Aug 2020, closed in favour of status quo.
:::::::Thanks Dr Blofeld. Provisionally then moves to articles can probably go to Technical Requests at WP:RM where they are visible, no WP:VN article should ever go near db-G6. And also no article should have ] cited when stripping Vietnamese spellings counter the RMs and RfC majority. Does this sound reasonable? ] (]) 11:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
*], multimove of 5 VN bios: 7 Aug to 23 Aug 2020, closed in favour of status quo.
::::::::I don't know, generally we use local spelling unless Cyrillic or Oriental based. The opinion on using diacritics for Vietnam seems to be mixed, I personally see no reason why we can't redirect the plain letters to the titles, but if you want to use plain letters I'm OK with that.♦ ] 11:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
] (]) 08:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Dr B. I agree, we've just had an RfC that agrees. At this stage however, if we can simply prevent db-G6 and undiscussed moves against that RfC it will be a major acheivement. For these capitalization moves there's no problem as long as (1) they are transparent - which means WP:RM or WP:RM Technical. (2) they aren't a cover for diacritic stripping at the same time. Kauffner, will you agree to that? ] (]) 12:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
::]. Just going to leave that one here. ] <small>(please ] on reply)</small> 10:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
*Any English-language publication that you might reasonably use as a reference for the spelling of geographic names takes off Vietnamese diacritics: '''' (recommended by ), '''', Encarta, '''', Oxford's '''', '''', , etc, etc. References of this kind tend to use far more diacritics than secondary sources do. The English-language media based in Vietnam has does not use them either. Do we want our copy to look like it is written by English-professionals, or by amateurs pushing non-English usage? ] (]) 14:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
::Kauffner, can you do this? Can you stop making undiscussed moves and db-G6? Can you use WP:RM and Tech Moves? ] (]) 14:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
:::This sounds heartfelt, although I can't imagine why you would care. Regardless who proposes the RM, you can still use it as another forum to denounce me. If it wasn't this, you'd be complaining about archive bots, moves from last year, or something else, so whatever. ] (]) 16:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
::::Kauffner, can you use the RM process rather than undiscussed moves? ] (]) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
*Dr. B asked me to contribute. I don't know anything specific to Vietnam, but unless something about its political/geographical organization is out of the ordinary, place names should be at <nowiki>]</nowiki>. If disambiguation is required, it usually should be done at the highest order level subdivision that clearly identifies the place to the exclusion of ambiguous other places. So, if the first level subdivisions are Provinces, and second level Districts. If there is a Foo in Prov1 and Foo in Prov2, and neither is so clearly the more commonly referred to Foo, then we have <nowiki>] and ], and a disambiguation page at ].</nowiki> If there are two Foos in Prov2, in Dist1 and Dist2, and neither is so clearly the more commonly referred to Foo, then we have <nowiki>] and ], and a disambiguation page at ].</nowiki> If one Foo is by far the more commonly referred to Foo, than it may get pride of place at <nowiki>], whilst other Foos are to be disambiguated as described.</nowiki> For an example (from Iran), see ]. There is only one Tidar in Lorestan Province (province=1st level subdivision), but alas Hormozgan Province has two - in separate counties (counties=2nd level subdivisions). Generally, administrative subdivisions and neighborhoods use parentheses rather than commas to introduce the disambiguating term, but that generalization is not a universal custom here either. ] (]) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
:::There are still whole bunch of articles with capitalizing "Province". So I say we must restore the upper case position for "Province" for all of Vietnamese province articles. ༆ (]) 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:29, 11 July 2024

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconVietnam
WikiProject iconThis page is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

RfC

The result is No Consensus. There is a very minor opinion here that may not reflect a broader opinion if there had been more participation. This opinion leans toward the proposals banner being restored. However, as the comments from some of the respondents are non committal and simply link to other discussions, there is no clear outcome. Recommendation: Editors with an interest in Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) should relist/restart this RfC which should be more widely publicised in order to attract sufficient participation to determine a clear consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page was changed from proposal status to guideline status 11 February 2011 without discussion on Talk page. Page appears never to have had either a proposal, nor a seconder, and principally reflects the views of 1 editor. (Q1) should Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) be returned from Category:Misplaced Pages naming conventions to Category:Misplaced Pages naming conventions proposals until it has gone through a consensus editing, proposal and adoption process? (Q2) if the answer to Q1 is yes then Q2 should the {proposed} banner be restored, or alternatively replaced with the {historical} banner? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC) -Note: Category:Misplaced Pages naming conventions page header states:

Those pages that have not received general consensus should be categorized in Category:Misplaced Pages naming conventions proposals. For a short introduction on how to go from proposal to naming conventions guideline, see and the intro of Misplaced Pages:Article titles.

The bot has just pulled this after 30 days, if there are no objections I'll post a request for an admin to close. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need to run it again

User:Agathoclea, User:Obiwankenobi, User:Cunard please note close above. Antonio Hazard was blocked per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive at 01:33 2 Sept. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe fix the thing first? In any case I've deleted entirely the diacritics section which was the main problem as being the main 1-person conflict with RfCs and RMs. I also added capital P and D for province and district (per earlier discussion here, and checked with Colonies Chris, could probably check further). Also moved the Nanyue/Jiaozhi material to the end. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Well the problem was that the page did not reflect consensus and therefore should not have been deemed a guideline. Now the disruption has officially ended it is easier to change the guidline to actually reflect consensus. Agathoclea (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes I think you're right, and it's needless duplication to re-run a RfC to remove one editor's addition of a guideline tag from a page that never had a RfC and then run another RfC to really adopt as a guideline. Besides, it'll be 2 weeks before the Talk:Gia Bình District RfC is closed, we don't know what the outcome will be yet. As you say, better to fix it. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Feedback about short name of Vietnamese people

In Administrative Documents, I think you should not use only the last name of Vietnamese. It is very weird for Vietnam names. Each word of Vietnam has only one syllable, Vietnam are not Western countries. Western countries have words with many syllables. So, if you call Khiêm or Minh, it is too short too too short. For example, the name Ibrahimovic have 5 syllables and it is very well for a short name. But in Vietnam, when you write the short name "Khiêm", it is very very short and weird. We should write full name for Vietnamese names if the full name is not too long (from 2-3 words in Vietnam's name), such as Nguyễn Khắc Khiêm, Nguyễn Duy Khiêm, Trần Minh Mẫn, Huỳnh Mẫn Đạt. In Vietnam, you can not call Nguyễn Du by Du or call Nguyễn Huệ by Huệ. It does not respect them. They are the famous people of Vietnam and contribute for Vietnam. So you must call full names for the respecting. In Vietnam, we have many people named Huệ and Du, and you can not call a too short name by Huệ or Du, it is not suitable for Vietnamese culture. We are Vietnam, not Western nations, please repect. Thank you. At the similar, footballers of Vietnam contribute for Vietnam, so you should call them by full name to distinguish a person to a different person and respect them. For a long name (from 4 words in name to over), such as Nguyễn Trần Huyền My, Nguyễn Cao Kỳ Duyên, Nguyễn Trần Thị Minh Duyên you can call them by Huyền My, Kỳ Duyên, Minh Duyên for the short names. That is OK. But you can not call Tôn Nữ Thị Ninh - a famous person of Vietnam, you can not call her by a short name "Thị Ninh" because in Vietnam, no one call name of a woman by "Thị+last name".Especially, Tôn Nữ Thị Ninh is a politician and all of Vietnam call her by full name, not "Ninh" or "Thị Ninh". With the men's names, such as Trần Văn Cường, Trần Văn Lực you can call them by Văn Cường, Văn Lực. In Vietnam, men usually have the middle name "Văn", women usually have the middle name "Thị". But no one call a girl or a woman by the short name "Thị+last name". Otherwise, with men, if they have middle name "Văn", you can call them by "Văn+last name" in the Administrative Documents. Thanks for watching! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usainnguyen (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with this comment. You should mention a person by his full name "Ngo Bao Chau" or "Mr Chau", not only Chau.Future ahead (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There's a natural desire to avoid repetition in a biography by shortening the name. For Western names, the usual practice of this encyclopedia is to use only the family name, a simplification of the traditional formulation "Mr./Mrs. LastName". As Usainnguyen points out, referring to an individual by their given name alone (e.g. "Diệm" rather than "Mr. Diệm") is just as informal in Vietnamese as it would be in English. What is the general practice in English-language literature? At a cursory glance, I see examples both of repeating the full name each time and of using just the given name (as recommended by this proposal), but a more comprehensive review would be welcome. – Minh Nguyễn  06:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:NCVIET" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:NCVIET. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Misplaced Pages:NCVIET until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 03:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:VIETCON" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:VIETCON. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Misplaced Pages:VIETCON until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 03:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevant RMs August 2020

The entire en.wp corpus uses full Latin alphabet diacritics through all titles and article bodies. This was established 10 years ago and kept the peace since. But for reference noting two recent RMs challenging this:

In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies. Just going to leave that one here. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese): Difference between revisions Add topic