Etymology edit

Is this toponym derived from ? Badagnani (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This place has its current name in the 20th century, its origin is quoc ngu, not Han tu. (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

All Vietnamese toponyms have etymologies. You're just saying you don't know the origin of this toponym, is that right? Badagnani (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Requested move edit

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

– Continuing the process of adding/reinstating diacritics to Vietnamese place names, as agreed recently at Talk:Cà Mau and Talk:Bắc Ninh Province and Talk:Vĩnh Long. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • Per WP:DIACRITICS any demonstration that sources show consensus on employing diacritics for this full list? They all appear to be low population rural districts, so I'm not expecting significant English sources material on any of them but I did want to ask. I'd be in support if sources material in English is low or a consensus among a sample or this list could be shown.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Legitimate question. I made an effort to add sources to some of the previous Province RMs, but when we get down to districts even finding sources is going to be difficult. WP:UE "Portuguese for Brazilian towns" concerns me that we'd end up with a random map where most districts have no sources at all, some districts have diacritic sources where there was a Confucian poet born (because it'll be of academic interest), while some districts have non-diacritic sources where there was incident in the Vietnam War (only a minority of serious VN War books have full diacritics), or there's a tourist resort, so we could end up with a map of Vietnam with tourist and war sites in "English" and the bulk of the map in Vietnamese, per WP:UE "Portuguese for Brazilian towns", and someone could look at Category:Districts in X Province and say "oh look, a non-diacritic district, that means there was a Vietnam War incident there or a tourist resort" - we'd be making a linguistic map of bomb craters and beachchairs. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support on basis of there bring too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage and thus following the conventions of the language by including the diacritics.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - per WP:UE "Portuguese for Brazilian towns", although at this level we are getting smaller than Brazilian towns. Also (noting User:༆'s "OMG" comment in the last RM) we probably need to, if this districts RM follows the Provinces and cities RMs, restore the rest of the districts by wider RfC. One bit of good news, the sub district settlement stubs won't need restoring, they never had the Vietnamese removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
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.

RfC: Should remaining Category:Districts of Vietnam titles have Vietnamese alphabet spellings? edit

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

The question concerns the remaining articles in Category:Districts of Vietnam and smaller settlements and follows the series of RMs for cities and provinces Talk:Cà Mau Talk:Bắc Ninh Province Talk:Vĩnh Long above. Most, example Category:Districts of Kien Giang Province, are already with Vietnamese alphabet spellings, as per the condition of the articles in 2011. This RfC is largely for confirmation of series of RM results (see above). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

* recognised English exonyms such as Vietnam, Hanoi, Saigon, Cholon, Haiphong, Mekong River and Gulf of Tonkin which are one word not two in English: (not Hà Nội, Sài Gòn, Chợ Lớn, Hải Phòng). Also Ho Chi Minh City. And features with distinct English names Annamite Range, Marble Mountains (Vietnam), Black River (Vietnam), Perfume River, Bassac River
* This RfC does not cover airports Buon Ma Thuot Airport which are all at English names and railway stations Lưu Xá Railway Station which are mainly at Vietnamese names.
* This RfC also excludes the regions of Vietnam (e.g. South Central Coast (Nam Trung Bộ), which are all at English names.

Survey edit

  • Yes/No
  • neutral I would note my position is akin to the National Geographic style manual. Whilst I have always found diacritics set that is native to Vietnamese language rather intimidating, I'm not going to oppose it here because I believe overall that Wikipedia editors value precision in that the article name should reflect the actual name of the subject as much as possible where the language natively employs Roman script. Caught in this dilemma, I am neutral on this question. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes generally though there may be other exceptions than the ones where two Vietnamese words combine into one English exonym; I'd want to consider a few such proposals and whether the exonym criterion should be tuned up, but the two-words-to-one criterion is a good start. It would be good to finish unrolling the damage that Kauffner did to Vietnamese titles by removing all their diacritics. It only helps, hurt nobody, to have the precise accented spelling in titles of places like Giang Thành District that are little known to most English readers. The diacritical info will not generally bother the average reader who wants to learn something about Vietnam, and will keep the title more precise, natural, recognizable to those familiar with the topic, and concise; and this plan will make titling of Vietnam-related articles more consistent, too. Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes generally per Dicklyon's well expressed comment. It's not as if we won't have redirects from the unmarked spelling. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • No. I object to heavy diacritical markings in the English WP. While appropriate for specialists in focused literature, they are distracting or alienating in a general usage encyclopedia. Proponents raise the hue that they are part of the Latin alphabet, but they are not. Word processors now have an extended Latin alphabet. This is not the standard alphabet used in English. Yopienso (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes per User:Dicklyon barring special exceptions (e.g. exonyms like Hanoi or Haiphong). There are some sources that can't type diacritics or have style manuals that prohibit diacritics. Wikipedia does not and, for those readers intimidated by unusual typography, the diacritics can be "read through". i.e., those unfamiliar with them can ignore the accents et al. Wikipedia is an online, Unicode-based reference work that need not reflect archaic typographical limitations especially here where disambiguation is needed. This is the practice we follow with all other Latin-alphabet languages (save one) no matter how strange the diacritics. (cf. Lūžņa (Latvian), Baħar Iċ-Ċagħaq (Maltese), Świętochłowice (Polish), Rădăuți (Romanian), and Söğüt (Turkish)). I see no reason why Vietnam should be different. —  AjaxSmack  03:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes as per Dicklyon. I found the some of the diacritics in European languages are even more complex than those of Vietnamese but we also have no problems with them. Furthermore, redirect in Wikipedia is cheap. ༆ (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes generally, also per Dicklyon's comment. Secondly also per AjaxSmack universal use of full scripts for all other Latin alphabets, Baħar Iċ-Ċagħaq (Maltese), Söğüt (Turkish)) etc, so in line with title reality and editor consensus overall en.wp. Thirdly noting that these Category:Districts of Vietnam were at Vietnamese spelling until moved counter RM results and redirect locked. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes As we treat one latin script like the other. Agathoclea (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes We're an encyclopaedia; we should always include the diacritics, no matter how unfamiliar (except for established exonyms as listed above). Colonies Chris (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes. Vietnamese diacritic system is arguably the most complex of all Latin-based alphabets. However, we should treat all Latin alphabets equal, and we favor major gain in precision over minor (and unproven) loss of accessibility. Those who do not know how to read them can continue to ignore them (as everywhere else), and those who do, or are keen to learn, should not be handicapped. I also must address the "follow the sources" mantra: while we rely on other secondary sources to provide information, we do not have to blindly follow the style they use; Wikipedia has its own style rules, and many of them come upon spontaneously and organically; the diacritic one was probably the toughest one to emerge. No such user (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • No. "Although Vietnamese is written in the Latin alphabet, the number of accent marks can be distracting and may therefore be omitted." From "National Geographic Style Manual", quoted in WP:DGUIDE. (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC) WP:SPIReply
    • It's unusual for someone with only two previous contributions to WP to join a discussion such as this. Is there a registered editor behind the IP who would like to step forward? Colonies Chris (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes - I think people will be able to handle the language and see no problem. Taketa (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes; Dicklyon put it more eloquently than I could. I think it's appropriate to retain diacritics in most cases but not where there's an established english-language exonym without. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Threaded discussion edit

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