Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)

Capitalizing Province etc.

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#Capitalization for province names — Preceding unsigned comment added by NVanMinh (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Where possible, articles on cities (thành phố) and towns (thị xã) use [[Placename]]. Where disambiguation is required, [[City, Province]] is used. Urban districts (quận) and rural distrists (huyện) are given in the form [[Placename District]]. Where disambiguation is required, [[Placename District, Province]] is used."

Can I ask, where is the link to where this was agreed, and who discussed it? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"(Rvt per WP:BRD. This is supposed to be a shortcut, not a place the dispute the MOS) (undo)" ...what kind of edit summary is this? Kauffner, you've been asked a question. Please answer it. In ictu oculi (talk) 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. Kauffner (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I respect Dr. Blofeld, but the question is: where is the link to where this was agreed, and who discussed it? Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the diff. Kauffner (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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 WP:VIETPLACE cited when stripping Vietnamese spellings counter the RMs and RfC majority. Does this sound reasonable? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:57, 13 December 2012 (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? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Any English-language publication that you might reasonably use as a reference for the spelling of geographic names takes off Vietnamese diacritics: Merriam-Webster's Geographic Dictionary (recommended by CMOS), Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, Oxford's Atlas of the World, American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford Dictionaries, 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? Kauffner (talk) 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? In ictu oculi (talk) 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. Kauffner (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, can you use the RM process rather than undiscussed moves? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why putting extra load on other people by channeling everything through WP:RM? Kauffner should stop now, WP Vietnam should get a convention, and then Kauffner can enforce it. WP:RM is superfluous. NVanMinh (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with RMs is that In ictu oculi fills them up with personal criticism, turning them into "bity cesspits," as he himself puts it. Kauffner (talk) 02:09, 16 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 [[Placename]]. 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 [[Foo, Prov1]] and [[Foo, Prov2]], and a disambiguation page at [[Foo]]. 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 [[Foo, Dist1]] and [[Foo, Dist2]], and a disambiguation page at [[Foo]]. If one Foo is by far the more commonly referred to Foo, than it may get pride of place at [[Placename]], whilst other Foos are to be disambiguated as described. For an example (from Iran), see Tidar. 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 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. ༆ (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason is not that there still are a lot, but it is the Wikipedia style. With the weird exception of the articles about districts of India, it is always "Foo Class" instead of "Foo class" for toponymes. NVanMinh (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization status

I reverted to pre-Kauffner upper case ("Foo Province"), to have South East Asia and East Asia in the same format:

• text in some province articles
• the templates in Category:Vietnam district templates
• Template:Districts of Central Highlands
• Template:Vietnam Provinces Image Map

NVanMinh (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization move requests

Maybe an admin can speedy these. NVanMinh (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• (Discuss) – Cà Mau peninsula → Cà Mau Peninsula – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Kiên Giang province → Kiên Giang Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Hậu Giang province → Hậu Giang Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Hòa Bình province → Hòa Bình Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Hải Dương province → Hải Dương Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Hà Nam province → Hà Nam Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Ha Giang province → Ha Giang Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Gia Lai province → Gia Lai Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Đồng Tháp province → Đồng Tháp Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Đắk Nông province → Đắk Nông Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Đắk Lắk province → Đắk Lắk Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Cao Bằng province → Cao Bằng Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Cà Mau province → Cà Mau Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Binh Duong province → Binh Duong Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Binh Thuan province → Binh Thuan Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Bac Ninh province → Bac Ninh Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Bình Định province → Bình Định Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – Bắc Giang province → Bắc Giang Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• (Discuss) – An Giang province → An Giang Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Voting at : Talk:An Giang province#Requested move. NVanMinh (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics

Kauffner and me would like to remove diacritics. Several others not. I for now stay away from any moves, because I would like one central decision and not hundreds of little fights. So I oppose any moves by Kauffner for now. I think that it also should be some high level decision, and not only a Vietnam project decision. It should be declared what languages can have diacritics and why; and why others not. NVanMinh (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

NVanMinh, we've just had a RfC on this (see above) and the majority view was 23:16 (or 23:10 excluding canvassed !votes). All Latin alphabet languages on en.wp have Latin alphabets, except for some disagreement on Vietnamese. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are the guidelines on diacritics:

• WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"
• WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage";
• WP:EN: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).";
• MOS:FOREIGN: "adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article";
• WP:PLACE: "English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name." Kauffner (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner,

Unfortunately selectively misciting guidelines does not answer the question regarding why you are moving articles counter RM results again? 24 November 2012 27 November db-G6 10 December?

Do you intend to keep making such undiscussed moves? Yes or No.

Can we have an answer please. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So the latest is from 10 December, this is before I mentioned my objection to any more partisan moves.

I support reversion of any move of this kind, that happens from now on. All moves should be done under consensus specifically about VIET place names. I have several reasons against diacritics, but if consensus is on the other side, then all I would do is to try to convince people - but not by moving articles around! And I also would like people of this project vote on the centralized page for reverting to pre-Kauffner capitalization of the provinces: Talk:An_Giang_province#Requested_move. NVanMinh (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"In discussion" tags need to stay

Until there is some willingness to let page reflect RfC majority. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Then please discuss, for example discuss this edit. Why is it important to have this material at the top rather than further down? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Surely one "In discussion" tag is more than enough. What is the benefit of four? The naming conventions for other countries don't even mention exonym or endonyms. Why should that go on top? Kauffner (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

1. There aren't 4x, there are 3x. The tag says "This section is the subject of a current discussion on the talk page." and 3x different discussions of different sections are ongoing.

2. I see you've inserted again the banner This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, but this page doesn't document "an English Wikipedia naming convention", it isn't "a generally accepted standard" and looking at the Talk page history makes it questionable whether there has ever been any support other than from yourself as author "that editors should attempt to follow" what you have written. Please remove this banner and discuss and gain consensus first. Then if all editors agree we may want to add it.

3. exonym or endonyms are just linguistic technical terms for "Anglicized vs. Vietnamese forms." Why should that go in the section 1. Because that is the first section in the current structure. which starts with 1 Anglicized vs. Vietnamese forms.

4. Now, good that we are talking, can you state why you propose "Encyclopædia Britannica or National Geographic that give diacritics for other languages, generally drop Vietnamese diacritics" should be placed in the lede ahead of all other sections? Is there a rationale for why this sentence should even be in the guideline, let alone placed as lede? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I reverted to the pre-dispute version of article, per WP:BRD. To have four "current discussion" banners in such a brief document is completely unnecessary. I am fine with no banners. No one other than you has expressed support for any of the changes you made, despite the fact the you invited several editor here in the hope that they would. Many editors participated in the RfC, but no one else has suggested that the guideline banner be removed. Kauffner (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner

If we revert to "pre-dispute version" then the banner before you changed it was:

Check the above YigMgo also objected to your 1-man editing of this "guideline" contrary to the RfC conclusion.

I think it would be best if you moved this draft to your sandbox if you are unwilling to discuss.

In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "guideline" tag again as contrary to (1) RfC majority, (2) that it has never been approved as a guideline. I propose to now re-add proposed. tag. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would a brief document need four "in discussion" tags? I've never seen another document with more than one. Dozens editors participated in the RFC. No one else suggested that the document needed such tags, let alone four of them. Kauffner (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, it certainly needs the proposed tag. It also needs at least one discussion tag. This is a minor issue. The main thing is that the page shouldn't misrepresent itself as being agreed "Naming conventions" when it is not agreed and when it doesn't reflect RfC result. Let's look at how other non-agreed proposals are headed. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Spanish) doesn't even have on. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

See examples of various proposed and inactive pages on Wikipedia:Proposed naming conventions and guidelines. You cannot unilaterally appoint a page you have written as a Wikipedia agreed guideline. Even if a draft was in agreement with RfC majority rather than against RfC majority, which this proposal isn't, one person cannot do this. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Or instead of using the {proposed} tag, the {historical} tag such as used on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

TAGS REMOVED:(cur | prev) 09:48, 17 February 2013‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,093 bytes) (-475)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 538679714 by Kauffner: you don't repeatly make the changes and then discuss. That's not what BRD says. (TW)) (undo)

Kauffner, WP:BRD is not a license to insist on misleading presentation of a MOS proposal, and evidently does not apply to a single author presenting his personal work as a consensus wp guideline and repeatedly removing any "proposed" "discussion" "reference" "essay" tags. Wikipedia works on consensus of editors, no User can present a personal set of guidelines as a guideline for en.wp to follow when its first content is contrary to the majority of a RfC the User themselves initiated. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, do you actually think that a document is improved for the reader when numerous tags are added? Because, frankly, I am finding it hard to assume good faith here. You know perfectly well that the RFC wasn't about tags. Kauffner (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There are 2 ways I believe a draft/proposed guideline is improved by accurate tagging such as {proposal} (1) it invites users who see the draft to input, (2) it avoids misleading users into thinking the proposal is a guideline. The number of tags is a secondary issue. Ideally 1 tag would be sufficient where there was no discussion of individual sections going on. At this point the question would be whether to restore the 1 tag

Or if there's no way forward with discussion to use the 1 tag

This solves the multiple tags issue. Which one would you prefer? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really follow your theory regarding what is a guideline and what isn't. Was it guideline at the time of the RFC? I don't recall anyone claiming it wasn't a guideline. Kauffner (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any diff link to any discussion by anyone recognising your proposal as a guideline? In any case the opposition of your proposal/draft to the majority of the RfC would render such a diff moot, but it would still be interesting to see. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In view of repeated removal of the {proposed} tag, and in view of removal of recent edits, adding a {historical} tag on the basis that (1) this page has never been approved, (2) we've had an RfC which contradicts the 1-person essay status this page had before, we've also got comment from four editors on this Talk page - myself, Yig Mgo, Agathoclea and Dr Blofeld disagreeing with page content. An essay is fine for a sandbox, but in a guideline location an proposed guideline/essay must be appropriately tagged. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) for a further example from Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Where ever I edit, I can count on IIO coming by to try to vandalize it. This thing had guideline status for well over a year. Despite the huge amount of discussion it has generation, and no one else ever questioned this status. I wrote it to apply the principles in well-established guidelines such as WP:DIACRITICS, WP:EN, and WP:COMMONNAME to Vietnamese. At the time I rewrote this document, these guidelines had been freshly confirmed by a large RFC. The document is not some royal edict dictating policy, and it doesn't say anywhere that you must write with or without diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This comment "Where ever I edit, I can count on IIO coming by to try to vandalize it" contains 2x personal attacks. On the first point the edits you make within WP:VN project space are of a small number and are frequently disruptive - within this week you have a 3rd time tried to strip the Vietnamese spelling from one of the dynasties, and were reverted, again, by another editor. If you cease making disruptive edits and contribute to the project less of them will be reverted. If you can show a [diff] of a non-disruptive edit that might be different. As far as the second personal attack "vandalize" - see WP:VANDALISM, this proposal already had a {proposal} tag on it until you removed it, if the {proposal} tag is "vandalism" then the original placer of the {proposal} tag is the "vandal" - but in fact it is not. As above if you look at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals you will they all have either {proposal} or {historical}. This is no different. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Titles should be name of the subject as it given in real world English, not in Vietnamese. You fill up one talk page after another with personal kinds attacks of this kind. I don't have to prove anything to you. I don't have any interest in supplying information that would make it easier for you to harass me. You weren't even involved in the Vietnam project when I wrote this stuff. I have been hounded and wikistalked like this for month on end, from one talk page to another. It is freakish and obsessive. You've forum shopped your complaints against me to a dozen admins by now. Kauffner (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner

You are not the centre of the universe. You have not been hounded and wikistalked. You were brought to ANI twice by two other editors for making moves counter RM decisions - I did not even comment on the first time. If you stop removing Vietnamese spelling from titles, text and templates, and start making positive content contributions to the project then there won't be anything anyone can object to.

As regards this naming convention proposal, as with Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals all proposals which have never been adopted, or do not have majority support, they all have either {proposal}, as this did before, or {historical}, it's normal. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So what guideline was ever "adopted"? Is there even a process for this? BRD covers only recent edits. It is not a license to go back to a version from years ago. I move titles from Vietnamese to English, and you come along a year later and start objecting. Those readers who want to learn Vietnamese, which I doubt is a large percentage, can always find this information in the opening. If you can object to titles on English Wikipedia being in English, you can object to anything. Kauffner (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Template for RS search

Does anyone think it would be we should mention {{Google RS}} in the page? It lets you search various news sites in one shot. Kauffner (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Google RSVP goes further than that: it searches a majority of reliable English-language Vietnamese sites as well as the major encyclopedias and major new sources of {{Google RS}}. Surely that should be useful? LittleBen (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Changes

Where there any changes to the WP:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) you wanted to propose beyond adding tags? Perhaps we could make a list and put them up for an RFC, or resolve them some other way. Kauffner (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As above we have just had an RfC, which you yourself initiated and phrased, on use of full Vietnamese spelling in article titles for which the majority view was 23:16 (or 23:10 excluding canvassed !votes). What I propose is removing the anti-Vietnamese spelling content of your proposed guideline to reflect the majority of the recent RfC which you initiated. If you remain opposed to reflecting the majority view of the RfC in your proposed guideline, then it remains an unaccepted proposal and should retain either the {proposal} tag it had earlier, or a {historical} tag. Either way as with the rest of Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals it should have either one tag or the other.

If you do want to reopen the RfC in specific relation to the proposed guideline I have no objection to finding a neutral editor to notify all participants of the RfC that it has been reopened. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)