| Revision as of 18:46, 15 December 2012 edit༆ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,243 edits →Disambiguation by Vietnamese name← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:50, 15 December 2012 edit undo༆ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,243 edits →Capitalizing Province etc.Next edit → | ||
| Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
| ::::Kauffner, can you use the RM process rather than undiscussed moves? ] (]) 18:54, 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) | *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) | |||
Revision as of 18:50, 15 December 2012
.svg){kind=small} | Vietnam NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives | |||
Index
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Remove guideline header?
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) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- There were dozens of people involved in the RfC, but no one else even suggested demoting the page. Kauffner (talk) 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. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Who elected you to speak for "the community"? This page conforms to WP:DIACRITICS and WP:PLACE, both very well established guidelines. Kauffner (talk) 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 wikipedia is there any mechanism which doesn't end up with Kauffner's opinion counting for more than a majority of other editors? In ictu oculi (talk) 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. Kauffner (talk) 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? LittleBen (talk) 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. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:48, 25 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. Kauffner (talk) 05:18, 13 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 wikipedia is there any mechanism which doesn't end up with Kauffner's opinion counting for more than a majority of other editors? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Who elected you to speak for "the community"? This page conforms to WP:DIACRITICS and WP:PLACE, both very well established guidelines. Kauffner (talk) 04:35, 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. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Kauffner, I am more than happy with the 23 majority view as expressed in the RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
VIETCON shortcut removed
ShortcutThis recent 18:21, 16 October 2012 shortcut creation doesn't have any consensus. There is no agreed convention for Naming conventions Vietnamese. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Whether it's essay or a convention, it can still have a shortcut. Kauffner (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's true. User:Prolog/Diacritical marks is just a one-person essay, but it has the misleading shortcut WP:DGUIDE to suggest that it's a guideline. But the list of references is similar to that listed here. LittleBen (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- That is true. But in that case (i) User:Prolog/Diacritical marks 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. In ictu oculi (talk) 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. LittleBen (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- See above. In ictu oculi (talk) 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. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- What I've done is rather than restore with essay, replace with
 | This section is the subject of a current discussion. Please feel free to join in. This doesn't mean that you may not be bold in editing this section, but that it would be a good idea to check the discussion first. |
- 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.
 | This guideline documents an English Misplaced Pages naming convention. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page. |
- A lot of other pages in Category:Misplaced Pages naming conventions proposals such as WP:Naming conventions (Arabic) have the heading template
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
- 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.
- In ictu oculi (talk) 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.")
In ictu oculi (talk) 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 Thanh Hoa (disambiguation):
Thanh Hóa (清化) (listen) can refer to:
- Thanh Hóa (city)
- Thanh Hóa province
- Thanh Hóa village in Quang Binh province
- Thanh Hóa Bridge
Thạnh Hóa (晟化) can refer to:
- Thạnh Hóa District in Long An province
Yig Mgo, as you noted this, do you have a view on how to handle this? In ictu oculi (talk) 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. Kauffner (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- We'll see what Yig Mgo says, it was his question. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. The page with title Thanh Hoa 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. ༆ (talk) 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 updated 2011 edition? 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. Kauffner (talk) 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. In ictu oculi (talk) 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. Kauffner (talk) 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? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is this:
| This guideline documents an English Misplaced Pages naming convention. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page. |
When was this adopted? And even if it was adopted, given recent RfC support for use of Vietnamese alphabet, this tag is misleading. In ictu oculi (talk) 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. Kauffner (talk) 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? In ictu oculi (talk) 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. Kauffner (talk) 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?
- In ictu oculi (talk) 15:33, 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. Kauffner (talk) 15:01, 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 WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. (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. Kauffner (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Kauffner, it makes an enormous difference, and it simply wasn't discussed, nor adopted as a guideline. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, whether it is the 23 majority on RfC or 3x people Agathoclea and Dr Blofeld's comments here now override WP:OWNER, or 1x person consensus. 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. In ictu oculi (talk) 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. Kauffner (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- If it's not a big deal good. The guideline header stays off. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I notice that you are talking Frommer's and Lonely Planet very seriously as geography references over at Talk:Medjugorje. We can certainly use them here. Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I am. WP:RS "the best such sources" will vary from context to context. In the case of the Balkans WP:RS "the best such sources" includes Frommers, Lonely Planet, EU Publications. In the case of Vietnam WP:RS "the best such sources" 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? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I am. WP:RS "the best such sources" will vary from context to context. In the case of the Balkans WP:RS "the best such sources" includes Frommers, Lonely Planet, EU Publications. In the case of Vietnam WP:RS "the best such sources" 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.
- I notice that you are talking Frommer's and Lonely Planet very seriously as geography references over at Talk:Medjugorje. We can certainly use them here. Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- If it's not a big deal good. The guideline header stays off. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:27, 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. Kauffner (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Kauffner, it makes an enormous difference, and it simply wasn't discussed, nor adopted as a guideline. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, whether it is the 23 majority on RfC or 3x people Agathoclea and Dr Blofeld's comments here now override WP:OWNER, or 1x person consensus. 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. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 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 Talk:Cần Thơ and Talk:Cà Mau. Do you understand that moving articles contrary to RfC and RM results is controversial? In ictu oculi (talk) 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. Agathoclea (talk) 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. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Culture
- Talk:Chữ Nôm 3 January 2007
- Talk:Hán Tự 28 January 2007
- Talk:Đàn tính 10 July 2012
- Talk:Bun cha 9 August 2012
- Talk:Pho 9 August 2012
- Talk:Cơm tấm 9 August 2012
- Talk:Bún bò Huế 16 August 2012
- Talk:Bánh bò 24 August 2012
- Talk:Lạc Long Quân 4 October 2012
Geography
- Talk:Cà Mau 6 July 2010
- Talk:Cần Thơ 7 August 2011
- Talk:Cà Mau 24 August 2012
- Talk:Bắc Kạn 21 November 2012
Biography
- Talk:Đặng Hữu Phúc → Huu Phuc Dang 16 July 2011
- Talk:Vo Chi Cong 30 September 2011
- Talk:Hồ Quý Ly 24 August 2012
- Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên 24 August 2012
- Talk:Ngô Bảo Châu 4 October 2012
- Talk:My Linh 20 October 2012
The above is an incomplete list. Should have others added in. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Capitalizing Province etc.
Shortcut"Where possible, articles on cities (thành phố) and towns (thị xã) use ]. Where disambiguation is required, ] is used. Urban districts (quận) and rural distrists (huyện) are given in the form ]. Where disambiguation is required, ] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Here is the diff. Kauffner (talk) 15:49, 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)
- 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)
- "(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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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 ]. 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 ] and ], and a disambiguation page at ]. 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 ] and ], and a disambiguation page at ]. If one Foo is by far the more commonly referred to Foo, than it may get pride of place at ], 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)