Talk:Chua Bo De

菩提寺

I request a source for this Hán Tự. I couldn't believe a VNese padoga in USA has a Hán tự version of its name.--Amore Mio (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is no source present for this "Hán Tự", I will remove it in one week.--Amore Mio ^(talk) 02:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed it, but this Hán Tự is rightfully spelt.--AM ^(talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Chua Bo De

Per WP:COMMONNAME, this article name should be "Chua Bo De" because:

• Most of English language source (see Chua Bo De#External links) referred this temple as "Chua Bo De" or "Chua Bo De Buddhist Temple". (The Google hits standard could not be applied because there are a lot of Pagoda named Bồ Đề in Vietnam)
• Even the temple name plate displayed "Chùa Bồ Đề Buddhist Temple" not "Bồ Đề Buddhist Temple" or something else.

I hope there will be no more "revert and demand of discussion".--Amore Mio (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly discuss future page moves, providing evidence and reaching consensus, before engaging in them. Usually that just takes a few days. Thank you very much for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly stop the nonsensical requests which prevent people from improving article's quality and drag them into the unnecessary edit wars and kindly answer me why I should get your permission fist before edit/move article. Kindly ask before demand and kindly stop edit if you haven't got a solid knowledge which regards to the article's topics. Usually that just takes a few keyboards' clicks. I beg you very much for this consideration because I couldn't improve the History of Vietnam's messes (such as Ngo Dynasty) because I'm so afraid of your "there are no consensus" reverting. You know, I'm not a native English speaker so writing English language arguments always drain all of my brain's stamina.--Amore Mio ^(talk) 16:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly moderate your tone. Badagnani (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Han tu removed

See [1]. Badagnani (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? Since I carefully and politely took the step of discussing before remove as you requested, could I take the discussion above as an Personal Attack or editing disruption?.--AM ^(talk) 14:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Our users must be foremost in our minds, and removing the origin of any place name (which in this case seems fairly clear) is never helpful to our users. Badagnani (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is only your opinion. My opinion is that the Wikipedia article's accuracy should be maintained at all cost. This Han Tu is obviously an Original Research since there is no proof which prove that the temple itself uses Han Tu. I would only accept this Han Tu if Wikipedia accepted Original Research in her article.--AM ^(talk) 11:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That was not the issue. The issue is: our users must be foremost in our minds, and removing the origin of any place name (which in this case seems fairly clear) is never helpful to our users. Badagnani (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently, This IS a serious issue. Have you got any proof for this claim? A Han Viet word might not have only a original Han Tu. For example, Phương might be Direction (phương hướng,方), Scent (hương thơm,芳) etc. If recklessly I defer Han Tu from a Hán Việt name such as Nam Phuong Hoang Hau, I could use 南方皇后 as the Han Tu for Nam Phuong Hoang Hau. What do you think if one of our user who does not know Han Tu at all use Wikipedia as his/her reference and simply copy Wikipedia's "accuracy Hán Tự" for his/her academic research?--AM ^(talk) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the issue. The issue is that removing the origin of any place name (which in this case seems fairly clear) is never helpful to our users. Please keep that in mind when removing the origins of place names from our encyclopedia's articles. Badagnani (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

zzzz.-.---AM ^(talk) 10:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)