Talk:Mạc Tuyên Tông

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. This is a procedural action, the R in BRD. Feel free to place new requests if you wish to further discuss the substance. --BDD (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mac Tuyen Tong → Mạc Tuyên Tông
• Mac Hien Tong → Mạc Hiến Tông
• Nung Ton Phuc → Nùng Tồn Phúc
• Thong Bien → Thông Biện
• Nguyen Bac → Nguyễn Bặc
• Son Vi culture → Sơn Vi culture
• Dak To District → Đắk Tô
• Buon Don District → Buôn Đôn District
• Tra Vinh → Trà Vinh
• Quang Ninh District → Quảng Ninh District
• Dong Le → Đồng Lê
• Dong Xoai → Đồng Xoài
• Vung Tau → Vũng Tàu

– This is a large administrative RM. All of the listed moves were made with the intent of removing diacritics from Vietnamese names without discussion. Any and all that follow requested moves knows very well that this is a controversial topic area, and should be returned to their original locations as this is a questionable use of WP:BRD The moves were made from account currently accused of sock puppetry. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Procedural close - sorry L, but really these should be at technical moves, and reverted automatically by WP:BRD. We shouldn't have to cite the 23:10 (excluding 6 canvassed votes) majority of recent RfC to restore the articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The moves are potentially of a controversial nature, negating it as a technical request and making it worthy of discussion. Community support is required to qualify these moves as in/appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mild oppose to all; we need sources. Give me proof that the names with the diacritics are more commonly used in reliable English-language sources and we have a deal. Red Slash 14:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Please right click. Though not all articles are equally sourced. With the kings there are sources, but with geo stubs we generally go by the consensus at 3RMs at Talk:Cần Thơ.

This I believe an example of why mass moves by a sockpuppet shouldn't have to go through the grind of a RM to be restored by WP:BRD. We just had an RfC with a 23-10 majority (excluding 6 canvassed votes). Do we need to notify everyone who took part in the RfC of this RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Three parts. First and foremost, strongly censure the page move strategy by User:TenMuses in cases like this. Listen, we've all made mistakes and I've certainly made my share of edits that I'm not proud of--but doing this in mass and in such a deliberate fashion is something we really don't need at the encyclopedia. This is not good.

Second, strongly support moving Tra Vinh to Trà Vinh as a page clearly in Latin script.

Thirdly, unfortunately (I say that because the strategy used by TenMuses was so abhorrent I'd not be surprised for the closer to move all of them simply to spite him), I really don't feel that any of the others are in Latin script--it's like porn, I don't know exactly how to define the line but I know it when I see it. Trà Vinh doesn't cross that line, but the others do. Solidly oppose all moves except Tra Vinh as per WP:UE; I hate to offend but those other proposed titles need transliteration into Latin script, cause those characters ain't in any Latin alphabet I know. Red Slash 06:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Why single out the grave mark, as in Trà Vinh? What should we do when it appears above a circumflex, as in Đồng Xoài? If the answer is "Đông Xoài", why indicate tone on one word but not another (pretty misleading, if you ask me)? Why bother with diacritics at all? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Trà Vinh looks like it has an accent grave, familiar to English-speakers from French and Spanish, but this is actually a tone mark. We omit the tone marks from pinyin as well. That the mark confuses readers this way seems like a pretty weak argument for putting it in. Kauffner (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. You can find RS examples of any of these names given without diacritics at Viet Nam News or VietnamNet. As for the RfC mentioned above, it was hopelessly disrupted by IIO and others, who put in enormous picture galleries and filled page after page with personal criticism. It was finally closed as "no consensus." There was no vote count and the numbers given above are just spin. Kauffner (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Reverting undiscussed moves. If this continues, Vietnamese names being treated bias and suffered of being removed diacritics, European names would soon follow, such as here they don't use diacritics for Romanian names. And if certain someone says he/she finds it difficult to use name with diacritics, that is exactly why we have redirect function. There are still sources using diacritics for Vietnamese such as [1]. What about Takéo Province? Most sources from Google don't use diacritics. ༆ (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that perhaps many opposers or would-be opposers would also support moving some of the ridiculous European names, as well. I sure would. I got caught up into a truly contentious debate on random city names in Kosovo because I preferred the Serbian-language name (gasp!) for one city because it didn't have diacritics whereas the Albanian name did. So there's that. Red Slash 09:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• I note that Vung Tau, easily the most notable item in this request, was created at a non-diacritic title and later moved without discussion.[2] Britannica, Oxford's [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0199937826/ref=rdr_ext_tmb Atlas of the World] (p. 443), VOV, and VGP News all give this name without diacritics. Isn't a bit patronizing to assume that we know how to spell Vietnamese place names better than the Vietnamese state media? Kauffner (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly, in 2005, adding Vietnamese diacritics to geographical article titles was standard practice here, so I moved "Vung Tau" to "Vũng Tàu" for consistency's sake. It was not meant to be a stake in the ground for a later controversy.

  To clarify, the Vietnamese alphabet is not a distinct writing system but rather a Latin-based orthography. The tone marks put Vietnamese in a unique position. You typically find complex diacritics in transliteration schemes, rather than bone fide alphabets. Even so, we distinguish scripts based on their lineages, and the Vietnamese and English alphabets clearly have a common ancestor in Latin. So you can't "transliterate" a Vietnamese name any more than you can transliterate a Polish one; the debate here is really about simplification.

  I see merits on both sides of the debate. For decades, Vietnamese place names were anglicized by removing not only diacritics but also spaces (e.g., Dienbienphu). These days, the spaces are left in but the practice of removing diacritics is very common. It may be unfair, compared to how other languages' names are typically rendered in English, but this wiki is descriptive, not prescriptive, of English usage.

  On the other hand, Wikipedia's house style tends to be rather progressive, preferring sentence case to title case, IPA to respellings, etc. I've seen American newspapers trotted out in these debates, but does it surprise anyone that the same wire services using double backticks for quotation marks won't take the time to get unfamiliar diacritics right? I'd be surprised if their antiquated systems could handle such things. As a wiki running on Unicode-saavy software, we can take the time to cross our t's (and d's) and dot our i's (above and below).

  I'm convinced that the English Wikipedia will someday come around to using Vietnamese diacritics, but that by then everyone else will already have done so. Until then, do as you wish. :^)

   – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 12:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  I appreciate the well-written, well-thought-out opinion. But if "Орск" is a different script from ours, "Đắk Tô" is, too. This is a question of transliteration. Red Slash 00:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  A transliteration is an alternative writing system for the original language, whereas diacritic-less Vietnamese is merely a shortcut for use in other languages. English allows stripping diacritics from French loanwords (resume, facade, etc.), but we don't call that transliteration. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support strongly for procedural reasons noted in the nomination. Also support on the merits. We use diacritics on titles dealing with other countries; why single out Vietnam for dumbing down? —  AjaxSmack  03:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The primary purpose of a title is to inform the reader, to tell him what the common English-language name of a subject is. "Follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language," as WP:DIACRITICS puts it. Only a few academic journals use Vietnamese diacritics, so it is misleading to present them as a common usage. Do you actually think in these terms, that Britannica, [http://www.amazon.com/The-Cambridge-History-Southeast-Asia/dp/0521663695 Cambridge History of Southeast Asia], [http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-World-Oxford-University-Press/dp/0199937826/ref=sr_1_1?s= the various atlases], and the other standard references are "dumbed downed"? Kauffner (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kauffner, you have been asked four times directly, is new User:TenMuses you? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.