Talk:Đặng Hữu Phúc

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Move to Dang Huu Phuc - The guidelines cited are more in favour of removing the diacritics than of keeping them, but there is no reason to change the name order and reasons have been given not to change it. English-language sources have been provided that exclude the diacritics. Neelix (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Đặng Hữu Phúc → Huu Phuc Dang – The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article.

Comment: Wikipedians should be informed that Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has recently made persuasive arguments on his talk page in support of moving articles to use English in their titles. Jimbo Wales writes: "To answer a bunch of specific questions above in one go: yes, all of those renamings to use English rather than foreign languages should happen immediately. I don't care what Britannica and Encarta do; they are resources for the 20th century, which is behind us now. I think moderation is in order, but I think we are very far from moderation. Đặng Hữu Phúc is a brilliant example: this is an absolutely ridiculous thing to have in an English encyclopedia as a title. What appalls me about this most is the weirdness of assuming that if something sort of looks like an English letter, we should have it, while if it doesn't sort of look like an English letter, we shouldn't. Shall we move Japan to 日本? Of course not, no one disagrees. But we have somehow, wrongly in my view, gotten to the point that Đặng Hữu Phúc is remotely plausible, since it sort of kind of in some weird way looks a little bit like English."[1] --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolovis (talk • contribs)

Oppose I would assume that you have some sources that that is how is name is spelled in English? A quick google search only shows a few results and none of them appear to be reliable sources. Best case of Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem yet. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Support, as english is easier to read, for an english reader. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Support as nom- Per WP:COMMONNAME as the only source used in the article shows the name spelled as "Huu Phuc Dang". This is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:EN, a biographical article does not use the subject's name as it might be spelled in Vietnamese as its article title, nor does it use the person's legal name as it might appear on a birth certificate or passport; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources that are used as references for the articles. Simply put, the use of "Huu Phuc Dang" is verified by the source used within the article, and "Đặng Hữu Phúc" is not. Dolovis (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Right and IMDB is widely considered not a reliable source because like wikipedia it is user generated. So there is currently no reliable sources supporting your naming. -DJSasso (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There are zero sources to verify that his name is Đặng Hữu Phúc. How can you justify an article title than has absolutely no supporting verification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolovis (talk • contribs)

Actually yes there are, Vietnamese ones. Which is all that WP:V requires. It specifically mentions in WP:V that if no reliable english sources exist or if the ones in another language are of a higher quality to use them. This is the case with this article. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose He is given as "Dang Huu Phuc" here and here. Vietnamese names are given family name first in any RS you want to consult: newspapers, encyclopedias, everywhere. Middle name first just doesn't make sense. As far as the diacritics go, this comes under "No established usage". So the current title follows our existing guidelines. Of course, Vietnamese diacritics are the most complex of any major language and "look weird", as Jimbo puts it. So if the consensus is to strip them out of article titles, I can certainly understand that. Kauffner (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am confused by Kauffner's comment. Are you recommending that this article should be moved to "Dang Huu Phuc" per your sources, or should it stay "Đặng Hữu Phúc" as it is now titled? Dolovis (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support a move to Dang Huu Phuc, should someone propose that. Kauffner (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

See #Alternative proposal below. Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The Vietnamese script uses its own alphabet (see Vietnamese alphabet). That alphabet is modelled on, or adapted from, a Portuguese variety of the Latin alphabet; but this does not make it also a version of the Latin alphabet. Therefore I agree with Jim Wales as he is cited above, deploring the "weirdness of assuming that if something sort of looks like an English letter, we should have it, while if it doesn't sort of look like an English letter, we shouldn't." Indeed, there is no more reason to think "Đ" a mere variant of "D" than there is to think Greek Δ or Cyrillic Д mere variants, and insist on their use in article titles. Origin is not identity. The case is different for languages in the European orbit. Hungarian has some extensions that go beyond core Western European diacritics: "ő" may be thought of as a naturally evolving long-vowel version of "ö", which is also used (sounded as in German). Turkish has similar modest extensions: "ı" goes along with "i". But with Vietnamese the case is so different, and so remote from practice that English has comfortably accepted from its linguistic and cultural neighbours, that it is better here to think of transliteration. As we do for Greek and Cyrillic. The matter may be politically sensitive; but that cannot be our primary concern. Noetica^Tea? 00:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Far removed from whose English? What the Phở? Get out more and check out Phở King, Phở Shizzle. —  AjaxSmack  14:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Far removed from traditional practice in English-language publishing. Do you also think we should start spelling according to punning business names? Do you think telephone directories should use "ặ" also? Do you think Megacles should redirect to Μεγακλῆς? (Those letters are all just variants from the same East Mediterranean source as the ones we more frequently use, way back.) Are you perfectly happy with Ħaż-Żabbar as an article title? On what principle do you base these choices? I have suggested something pragmatic. Do you really want Da Nang moved to Đà Nẵng? Will you prefer Vietnam or Việt Nam? Do you favour moving Mozambique to Moçambique? There is no gold standard; we have to decide for ourselves. A large part of that is examining what reliable sources do. Another part is considering what will work. A third part is getting informed about the nature and functioning of alphabetic scripts: their identification, delimitation, and options for transliteration and reduction in the service of real-life communication. Noetica^Tea? 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The subject is known primarily for work in Vietnam and his name should not be "translated" by editors any more than Mao Zedong should be Zuh Dong Mao. —  AjaxSmack  14:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have another quote from the Wikipedia boss courtesy of WP:JIMBOSAID: "I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with 'Jimbo said...' is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think". —  AjaxSmack  14:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. But if he weighs in as an editor among editors, and happens to speak sense, he may be cited as much as anyone else. You seem to be happy about Mao Zedong rather than Máo Zédōng. Why? And the term you're looking for is "transliterated", not "translated". A translation of "Máo Zédōng" (毛泽东) would be a strange and difficult thing. Noetica^Tea? 23:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• View: There are two big differences between Đặng Hữu Phúc and 日本: (1) one is composed of Latin characters and one is not; (2) the latter is the native spelling of a placename for which an English exonym exists. If it weren't for the exonym, the article would have been entitled Nihon, not 日本. In fact, I'm perfectly happy with how the Maltese town is shown - Latin Ħ is suitable for titles, but Greek Η, Cyrillic Н or Cherokee Ꮋ are not (except in some extreme cases like .бг and .срб, where they are inevitable). I oppose the move. Dang Huu Phuc is neither English nor Vietnamese. Đặng Hữu Phúc is not English either, but at least is Vietnamese. --Theurgist (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Theurgist, if the matter were exhausted by simple binary oppositions it would be easy to resolve. But there are not simply names that are "composed of Latin characters" versus names that are not. Nor are there simply names in English versus names that are not in English. Of course there are big differences between "Đặng Hữu Phúc" and "日本"; but there is a big similarity. Both use characters outside the set that users of English can reasonably be expected to master, when writing or editing English for general purposes. Even professional publishers adapt, and so should we. The example of "phở" (the delicious Vietnamese soup) came up above. Two things to note: 1) interestingly, filenames use "pho", not "phở", as a standardisation; 2) searches of Googlebooks yield just 1 genuine hit for {phở -pho "Vietnamese soup"} and 118 for {-phở pho "Vietnamese soup"}. This by itself hints that 99% of print sources (that's "reliable sources" for us, right?) prefer "pho" to "phở". So tell me: is "phở" a word in English? Is "pho"? Which is the common name in English for that soup, if one must be found? Isn't there just one English word, for which the overwhelmingly preferred spelling is "pho"? On what principles do you recommend that we decide these questions? "Pho" is the dominant spelling of a word in current use (and the only form in OED's entry, and in Collins English Dictionary's); by analogy with "pho", and with practice for other names on Wikipedia (Máo Zédōng redirects to the simpler romanisation Mao Zedong), how can Dang Huu Phuc be summarily ruled out? (By the way, {"Haz-Zabbar"} gets 18 hits on Googlebooks; {"Ħaż-Żabbar"} gets 0. {"Dang Huu Phuc"} gets 7 hits on Googlebooks; {"Đặng Hữu Phúc"} gets just 1, and that source is published in Vietnamese.) Noetica^Tea? 22:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for your comment. Firstly, let it be known that I wouldn't bother too much either way (I would if a request of this kind was a precedent, but it's not so) and I have no personal or professional attitude towards the person in question. I just favour consistencies, favour punctuality, and favour it when consistencies reflect names as they really are. Secondly, I believe that we should not hereby discuss the soup itself, which I haven't so far paid much attention to either, but rather the person with whom the article deals; the name for the soup is a common noun that may (or may not) have been adopted as a loanword in English, and may (or may not) have been simplified to a variant without the accented Ơ. Proper names, like names of people or of geographical locations, are conventionally cited across languages with Latin-based alphabets as they appear in the original (unless exonyms are dealt with, and with a few exceptions among the languages, like Latvian and Azerbaijani, following whose practice would result in something like Dung Hoe Fook in Queen's English). This may be troublesome in typing and printing, and characters are sometimes simplified to their plain non-diacritic equivalents due to technical inability or particular internal editorial policies, but can be set off with the accents when punctuality is insisted on, and this will certainly not be regarded as wrong, just the contrary; and Mr. Phúc is still a Vietnamese citizen and his name is there in his Vietnamese passport spelt according to Vietnamese spelling customs. See Template:Vietnamese name, which says: the family name is "Đặng", but is often simplified to "Dang" in English-language text, and not: the family name is "Đặng" in Vietnam and "Dang" elsewhere. You can't say that all Nguyễns are Nguyens in the U.S. and the UK, can you? Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, at that not a parer encyclopedia, it allows diacritics, no article has been completely finished and each one is meant to be improved further; and also inserting links to a non-diacritic redirect across other articles is not seen as a great problem. I don't believe many readers will be surprised to see the name of a Vietnamese person with its diacritic signs. Some other Wikipedias (German, French, Italian, Slovak, Hungarian) never omit special characters that aren't used in their own alphabets (by the way I doubt that a collaborator to the Spanish Wikipedia would support getting rid of all diacritics but the Ú in Phúc, or one who edits the Croatian Wikipedia would be in favour of abolishing all but the Đ in Đặng, but that's another topic). On the rest of the topics you touched. If you mean filenames like File:Flag of Sao Tome and Principe.svg, I don't see how this is relevant, because filenames are something "behind the scenes", something not visible to a reader who is not also an editor, similarly to edit summaries, hidden texts, comments on talk pages, etc. Filenames can contain non-capitalised proper names, counterintuitive abbreviations, words in foreign languages or scripts, or nonsensical sequences of letters or numbers, but nobody complains about that. As far as Mao Zedong is concerned, Chinese uses a non-Latin-based orthography, and while its scientific pinyin romanisation requires the tone markers, conventional transcription drops them as tones are irrelevant to how an English speaker will pronounce a given Chinese name in English speech. I don't think I've ever seen any accented Chinese names outside linguistics-related context, in a text in any Latin-written language, including in Wikipedia. Vietnamese, conversely, uses Latin vowel letters, and insertion of tone markers results in new, unsightly, but still Latin vowel letters. --Theurgist (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am grateful for your serious and well-considered reply, Theurgist. I have no strong interest in this particular RM, though. I will not pursue the matter any further. See my reasons, below (at the end of my answer to Nurmsook). I just wish evidence and argument would count more, rather than sheer insuperable opinion. I don't allege that in your case! Noetica^Tea? 23:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• So, we've got "Jimbo doesn't matter!" and "The True and Correct™ spelling is..." on one side, and WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UE, and WP:AT on the other. Humm... Support.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  No actually all three of those policies require you to have english reliable sources. If you search google there are no english sources showing the spelling he is suggesting you move it to. All three of those policies would then suggest you use the native source. It is the side requesting the move that is currently lacking sources not the other way around. You've claimed you have no issue with using them on articles which don't have english sources. Have you changed that opinion? -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  There are no sources at all, so your appeal to that sort of authority falls flat on it's face. Besides the fact that you're one of the staunchest partisans in this debate, which makes this statement suspect from the beginning (nevermind the continuing poor behavior of making personal attacks).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Pursuant to WP:COMMONNAME, only 3,970 results are yielded from a Google search of "Huu Phuc Dang", while 116,000 results are yielded from "Đặng Hữu Phúc". Further, only 6,420 results are yielded from "Dang Huu Phuc". All of these "Jimbo said" arguments have about as much leverage as "my neighbour said" arguments. Jumbo may be the founder, but because of how Wikipedia works (on consensus), his views on articles are no different that any other user's. Hell, last time I checked, he was stripped of his admin rights because he was censoring Wikipedia, something Wikipedia is not. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nurmsook, that is all misleading. Some particular points:

• 3,970 results are yielded from a Google search of "Huu Phuc Dang"

Wrong. That is Google's raw estimate. Go through the pages (forcing Google to retrieve, not just estimate), and it narrows down to 61 genuine hits.

• 116,000 results are yielded from "Đặng Hữu Phúc"

Wrong. Again, that is Google's estimate. But you can't narrow it as we just did, because Google imposes a limit in that process beyond which it reports no more hits. The hits are almost all in Vietnamese, not English.

• Further, only 6,420 results are yielded from "Dang Huu Phuc"

Wrong. It narrows to 496 genuine hits.

To do this properly – to compare results for "Đặng Hữu Phúc" and "Dang Huu Phuc" in English – we can add some relevant uniquely English words. (There are other ways, but for simplicity I set them aside.) The results of two searches:

{"Đặng Hữu Phúc" Vietnamese composer}: 282 genuine hits (and then subtract hits on Wikipedia and its clones)

{"Dang Huu Phuc" Vietnamese composer}: 171 genuine hits (and then subtract hits on Wikipedia and its clones)

The other figures are worthless, for determining usage in English. Next, look at the results I report above for Googlebooks (published print sources, which are what WP:COMMONNAME calls for as reliable sources):

{"Dang Huu Phuc"}: 7 hits on Googlebooks

{"Đặng Hữu Phúc"}: 1 hit on Googlebooks; and that source is published in Vietnamese

But why even try? Generally, people debating RMs like this are not concerned with evidence. Politics and preformed opinion trump everything else. For example, Nurmsook, I have to ask: do these figures I reveal alter your opinion? Do you now change your vote? Hmmm. Noetica^Tea? 23:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I still oppose a move to Huu Phuc Dang. As the Google results still reveal after your more in depth analysis, Dang Huu Phuc would be a much more appropriate title if we go the non-diacritic route. But this RM is regarding a move to Huu Phuc Dang. Clearly that should not happen. Even you have demonstrated that. Anyways, I'm not trying to get into some sort of war with you. As always, I come here in good faith. A lot of users have been demonstrating bad faith lately. "Not concerned with evidence"? Is accusing another user of whatever comes into your head really necessary? Geez. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent example of how ridiculous the push to use "correct" diacritics foreign to English has now become. WP:AT: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. The vast majority of English speakers (myself included) would not recognise the current title as English at all, and have no idea how to pronounce it. The diacritics are pure hindrance to its intelligibility. I say again: The well-intentioned work that has been done to make it possible to use diacritics in article titles has had unforeseen negative consequences. It has proven impossible to find a reasonable middle ground, so we should now cut our losses, simply drop them from all article titles, and get back to the job of writing an encyclopedia. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Without the accents you won't know how to pronounce it either. Not transcription is proposed, but dropping the special characters, which cannot suddenly change the pronunciation of a Vietnamese name, but will instead make it ambiguous to those who know some Vietnamese, as they won't know for instance whether the vowel in "Dang" is A, Ă or Â. --Theurgist (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong... English is a living language, a very complex thing. I as an English native speaker have little trouble pronouncing the indiacriticised version in English. The diacritics just puzzle me. Yes, they are useful for Vietnamese speakers I'm sure, but this is English Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And this seems to be the problem... Certain English speakers assume that all English speakers are as ignorant as they are, and that Wikipedia has to lower itself to this common denominator. I too have absolutely no idea what the diacritics signify in this language, but I am sure that there are many English speakers who do, and will thus be better informed if we use the diacritics (and misled if we omit in one case where as a rule we would be expected to use them). Meanwhile we of the ignorant majority are not harmed in any way (surprised, at most) by the presence of the diacritics - we can still see what the underlying letters are and know how the name would be written in diacritic-less text.--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything of the sort, and regard that as a personal attack (and please don't waste everyone's time by debating that without first reading what the policy actually says). Let us drop the emotive language and instead look at the issues. It seems that you and I at least are agreed that the majority of English speakers are most comfortable with the omission of the diacritics in this particular case, and that we gain no benefit from them, is that a fair statement? Andrewa (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't claim to know what makes people comfortable. I wouldn't say "no benefit" (they might awaken someone's thirst for knowledge), but not much benefit, certainly. However a minority do gain a benefit (I mean in terms of real encyclopedic knowledge), which, given our mission, I would say outweighs the abstract feeling of "comfort" that some members of the majority may feel if the diacritics are omitted. (No idea where the "personal attack" thing comes from.) --Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting viewpoint. Lots of personal opinions, and generally out of step with existing policies. But consensus can change and this may even be the way that Wikipedia is heading. For now I think I've made my point. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per my arguments above about the diacritics, plus the fact that the proposal involves a change of word order which isn't explained. --Kotniski (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • See above re diacritics, and below re word order. Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No matter what happens to the title, the diacritics will still be given in boldface in the opening, not to mention available in the Vietnamese version through interwiki. IMDB changed the order of his name to make him alphabetize by last name. But of course that isn't a good reason to do it, especially when we have defaultsort to handle that problem. Kauffner (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We should follow whatever word order is most likely to be recognizable to readers (to quote WP:AT of course). Google web search [2] [3] favours Huu Phuc Dang as proposed, about 2:1 so it's borderlne by that test but in favour of the proposed order if anything. Interestingly, I get exactly the same results if I exclude IMDB [4] [5] (your results may vary). Andrewa (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting totally different results when I click on your links (only 14 results for HPD compared with hundreds for DHP), though the initial page for the HPD search promises "about 2050" results. Anyway, I wouldn't take much notice of that; we know what his name is, and presumably we have a standard practice for dealing with Vietnamese names and whether we reorder them or not. --Kotniski (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guideline if it exists should be listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#People from countries where the surname comes first, and it isn't listed, only Chinese, Korean and Japanese conventions are listed, and a one-sentence convention is given for Hungarian. That doesn't mean the guideline doesn't exist, unfortunately; Can anyone else help with this? Andrewa (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And my suspicions were well founded. A link to the guideline has now been added, see below. Working on its provenance, also see below. Andrewa (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. I see this whole problem this way: the English language uses the English variant of the Latin alphabet. The overwhelming majority of readers (including myself) don't have faintest idea how to read and pronounce Đặng Hữu Phúc, written in the Vietnamese variant. All these diacritics are simply utterly unknown to us. Some cases may result in reasonable exceptions but this simply isn't one of them. Flamarande (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • So how do you pronounce Huu Phuc Dang? And how would diacritics prevent you from pronouncing it properly? The diacritics are not unknown to all of "us" and some of us cannot pronounce the names correctly without them. —  AjaxSmack  00:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • How do you decide what the correct pronunciation is of Đặng Hữu Phúc, in English? I'm fascinated. Andrewa (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
      • AjaxSmack, please remember that Wikipedia is not for specialists, but for common lay readers. Flamarande (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
        • It's for both. And in this case, by retaining the diacritics, we serve both. (Assuming you can call someone who knows a foreign alphabet a "specialist".)--Kotniski (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Family name first is standard for Vietnamese names. I wrote a guideline about it here. Look at Ngo Dinh Diem or Nguyễn Văn Thiệu. For this person in particular, there are seven examples of Dang Huu Phuc on Google Books, zero for Huu Phuc Dang. For diacritics in the title, my standard is at least 10 percent usage, with The New York Times standard as a default. (They use only the simpler diacritics from French, German, and Spanish.) Here we have no English-language examples of "Đặng Hữu Phúc," but several for "Dang Huu Phuc." English-language sources do not put diacritics on Vietnamese names, not even Britanica. A title with diacritics says to the reader that this form is an acceptable English-language usage. So we shouldn't be writing titles that way unless that is in fact the case. Kauffner (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Got it! Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#Names of people. Interesting. Has this been through any process of acceptance, do you know? Andrewa (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It was hashed over on the WikiProject Vietnam talk page. I promoted it to guideline status a few months back and no one has complained. Kauffner (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Anyway, I've added it to the naming conventions (people) page at the place you were looking.--Kotniski (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Keeping the documentation up to date won't solve all of Wikipedia's problems, but it won't hurt and may help (or otherwise, we should just delete all the rules except the one that says there aren't any). Kaufner, to this end can you provide a link to the actual discussion that resulted in this guideline? As it's at least a few months back it's a bit of work to find it now, but probably less for you than for those of us who weren't involved, and it should be linked to from several other talk pages including this one. (Kotniski or Kauffner, if you want to somehow fix the hanging bullet, you have my permission to restring this comment too to make it match.) Andrewa (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The discussion is here. Kauffner (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Thank you! Interesting... Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

This is a section to formally consider the proposal (implicit in much of the above discussion and explicitly favoured by at least one contributor I think) that we move instead to Dang Huu Phuc, that is omit the diacritics but keep the existing word order. This is not to duplicate the discussion above, but to summarise it for the benefit of the closing admin and others interested.

To this end, my suggestion is that those interested indicate their own order of preference of the now three proposals, and keep other comments here to a minimum.

My own order is (1=) Dang Huu Phuc, (1=) Huu Phuc Dang, (3) Đặng Hữu Phúc. That is, drop the diacritics and I can argue the word order either way. Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• All right, for reasons already given (and generally for conformance with the way WP treats Vietnamese names), (1) Đặng Hữu Phúc, (2) Dang Huu Phuc, (3) Huu Phuc Dang.--Kotniski (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikipedi UNESCO World Heritage petition in Vietnamese

Hãy kí tên vào bản kiến nghị đề cử Wikipedia trở thành Di sản Thế giới! Thông tin thêm

Gửi UNESCO và các nước đã ký Công ước Di sản Thế giới: tôi ủng hộ đề nghị công nhận WIKIPEDIA trở thành Di sản Văn hoá Thế giới bởi vì tôi tin rằng Wikipedia là một kiệt tác của sự sáng tạo tài tình của loài người và cũng là của giá trị nhân văn phổ quát. Xin hãy chấp nhận để WIKIPEDIA trở thành Di sản Văn Hoá Thế Giới kĩ thuật số và toàn cầu đầu tiên! Đệ đơn.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move both articles. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

---

• Dang Huu Phuc → Đặng Hữu Phúc
• Nguyen Dinh Thi → Nguyễn Đình Thi

– Per recent RfC and RMs at WP:VIETCON. These Vietnamese composers are notable primarily locally in Vietnam, though the first won a prize at Shanghai 2004 film festival for the soundtrack to Thời xa vắng (Le temps révolu) based on the novel of Lê Lựu. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Le Duc Tho § Requested moves

• Support per wp:vietcon ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The subjects are known primarily for work in Vietnam. In such cases, Wikipedia does not typically strip diacritics from names in Latin alphabets (cf. other entries at Category:Vietnamese composers). —  AjaxSmack  00:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. per WP:USEENGLISH. These diacrtics are not English. No evidence they're using in reliable ENGLISH sources. --B2C 08:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support: This sort of move is entirely routine now and need not be full-scale WP:RMed every time; just put it in the noncontroversial section (one editor's return to campaigning against diacritics not long after being partially topic-banned from such RM discussions doesn't constitute an actual controversy).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Routine? Whatever happened to WP:USEENGLISH? Reliable English sources don't do this. Why do we? --B2C 16:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Useenglish also has a section on "No established usage in English-language sources". Looking for "Huu Phuc Dang" only gives 29 non-duplicate results. There are vastly many more sources in vietnamese for this fellow, so I think we don't have sufficient english-language sources to establish a clear usage, in which case past consensus has led us to prefer the vietnamese.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are only 29 English language sources, then there are only 29 English language sources, and that's what we must use. WP:COMMONNAME is quite clear on this, for good reason: "as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". Our readers are presumed to be English language readers, and rightfully so. In any case, a paucity of English language sources is no excuse to start looking at non-English sources! --B2C 18:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Far more broadly speaking, there's a consensus over the last several years of RMs in general, and at MOS:DIACRITICS, etc., to prefer diacritics where they belong; the jingoistic attempt to effectively ban them from WP has dismally failed, and it's time for false controversy about it to stop being manufactured like this. It's a classic case of tendentious editing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support as basically more accurate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not more accurate IN ENGLISH!!! --♚∰☕ 22:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

b2c, what exactly is your definition of english? I can point you to english language sources that use vietnamese diacritics. Does this make them non-english? Vietnamese is a somewhat special case, since to some eyes the accents appear rather dramatic and foreign, whereas none of us would blink an eye at a François or a José. But, these are still simply latin characters with adornments, and you can simply ignore the squiggles and read the underlying character. I think there are exceptions here - for names or places that are widely known and have earned exonyms in English like Saigon or Vietnam we dont use diacritics, but for small communes and artists not much known outside of country, we should go by the proper spelling.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. We are not bound to the same technical limitations that traditionally result in the dropping of diacritics, and therefore have no reason to use less accurate spellings of people's names. Resolute 23:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - As far as I can tell, the non-diacritic versions are the most common in English language sources. Rlendog (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Rlendog, sorry but please what English language sources are you referring to? one and only sentence text mention in an available English source, an Indian magazine Osian's Cinemaya (2005), is not even cited in the article as it relates to a film soundtrack, not directly to the BLP. This article is a translation of a vi.wp article and therefore its sources are, and have always been, in Vietnamese. Hence WP:UE (Use English) "follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians". Please see history going back to admin User:Kusma's salvage of original vi.wp editor's article creation. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support the "USEENGLISH" argument is fundamentally flawed as since about Wilhelm II, German Emperor we stopped "translating" names into English. Note that his father and grandfather are to be translated. Modern English usage is to use the name of the person as is, while some other languages still translate names. As far as the spelling goes WP:UE (Use English) "follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians" and the use of sources reliable in the context of the claim made are still applicable - Agathoclea (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• support per nom. Again WP:USEENGLISH is irrelevant, the names aren't English with diacritics or without them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Đặng Hữu Phúc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130103050148/images-vinabook.com/product/10/40580/_fill_300_40580.jpg to http://images-vinabook.com/product/10/40580/_fill_300_40580.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)