Talk:Bat lau dung laai

Vietnamese speaker's Cantonese accent
Although the speaker sounds like he's saying "thuyền dân", he really meant to say "thuyền nhân". Compare that with "những" and "nhập" in the same announcement. They sound like "dững" and "dập", which are meaningless in this context. DHN 07:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

When I first see the phrase "Bắt đầu từ nay", my first impression was that it's a catchy phrase with the meaning "A new future starts right now". Only after I read more I realised it meant something quite different. At first impression, I thought it was positive for the boat people, but infact it was negative. Therefore one should always read more and not to rely on the literal meaning of the words. dmaivn 2:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow i never knew what this phrase mean or came from. Always knew it by the Cantonese transliteration. Never heard of the original RTHK broadcast either. Good job with the article. --Kvasir 07:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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 back to Bắt đầu từ nay, without prejudice against an alternative move to a Cantonese transcription as suggested below. Of the two oppositions, Kauffner's argument doesn't necessarily endorse one title over another; Tavatar's idea of a "neutral stalemate" isn't conventional practice for article titles. All plausible redirects will also be created. Deryck C. 13:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Bat dau tu nay → Bắt đầu từ nay – Restore. Cannot revert move due to edited redirect. This 1988 infamous broadcast warning phrase " From now on, a new policy regarding Vietnamese boat people has been implemented in Hong Kong." is legendary in Hong Kong, but all the sources are in Chinese, Cantonese or Vietnamese. Not a single English source. Given that on what basis does a phrase in Category:Vietnamese words and phrases get rewritten into something that looks like a phrase in Malay or Filipino? Instead restore to original title per WP:AT "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject". In ictu oculi (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the article was recently moved to the current title without discussion. —  AjaxSmack   16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. A title on Wiki should be as it would appear in, "other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources," according to WP:EN. None of those kind of sources use Vietnamese diacritics, not Britannica, not Columbia, not Encarta, not the dictionaries, and certainly not major English-language media. Where this article should be is at AFD. There are no references for it in any language. Although I searched, I didn't find any English-language RS for it. There is nothing on GNews, GBooks, GScholar, or JSTOR. You can translate the Vietnamese as "from now on" or "starting now." It is a common, every day kind of phrase. The Vietnamese I talked to don't associated it with Hong Kong or boat people. The Vietnamese version of this article is a just a translation of an older version of the en.wiki article -- There are no references there either. Kauffner (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. That's not always true is it, as we saw in the đàn tính RM, some scholarly sources do in fact treat some category:Vietnamese words and phrases as per French and Czech. Anyway, putting that aside, can you please link to the en.wp policy that says that only English language sources can be used, because WP:AT "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject" above seems to say exactly the opposite.
 * I suppose you can try and AfD the article on the basis that all articles with non-English sources must be AfDed, but if that's your view, (i) why are you moving it, (ii) why are you editing the redirect with the result that your move cannot be reverted? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No source gives the name of this subject in the proposed form. It's notability is entirely in Cantonese. If you think the "no establish usage" provision applies to every language, you should amend to "北漏洞拉." Kauffner (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:WORLDVIEW it's the transcript of a radio/TV broadcast in Vietnamese language in HK. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and WP:UE: "follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject". The phrase is not English.  As the lead sentence states, "Bắt đầu từ nay, ... is a Vietnamese phrase meaning 'beginning from now'..."  —  AjaxSmack   16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. If Kauffner is genuinely concerned about notability, I would point out that WP:N doesn't care at all which language a source was published in, and rightly so; because discounting foreign sources would make our systemic bias even worse. The second point of the GNG says "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language". bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * support per nom. This is a VN phrase at its origin, so spelling it correctly is a no-brainer.--KarlB (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure about this one. This isn't necessarily an article about a Vietnamese phrase so much as an article about a Cantonese phrase, possibly butchered from the original Vietnamese.  Perhaps Cantonese transliteration rules should apply. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment No opinion on the move; just mentioning that the Cantonese Yale romanization would be bāk lauh duhng lāai. If you want the title to be really ugly and unreadable while remaining within 7-bit ASCII, you could also use jyutping instead: bak1 lau6 dung6 laai1. 61.18.190.15 (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope that no wants to move the article to either of those forms. Hong Kong spelling is pak lau tung lai. Kauffner (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope I have addressed P.T.'s completely legitimate question by the addition of a Vietnamese source, a Vietnamese nun writing from the standpoint of the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong's Chi Ma Wan Detention Centre here. Of course the focus of the Vietnamese nun is on the impact of the "From now on.." announcement on the inmates and new boat people arrivals, not on the comic aspect to the general Cantonese population, but it hardly seems appropriate to WP:FORK the article over the detentionees and Hong Kongers different reactions to the announcement, particularly when Cantonese-vs-boat people sensitivities are covered in the article. The Vietnamese nun confirms the wording of the statement, and also its WP:WORLDVIEW notability to Vietnamese emigrants as well as Hong Kongers of that generation. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * She quotes the whole sentence. I have yet to see any indication that four-word phrase has notability in Vietnamese (let alone English). That it is quoted this way suggests the reverse. Kauffner (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a Vietnamese phase that got made popular in Hong Kong, which makes both Hong Kong and Vietnam stalkerholders for this article. It makes sense to keep the current title as it keeps the article in a neutral stalemate status for all parties. T@ναταΓ (discuss–?) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean keep the new title, the undiscussed move? The problem is Bắt đầu từ nay exists in Vietnamese sources. bāk lauh duhng lāai exists in Cantonese sources. The Bat dau tu nay doesn't exist in any source other than in a few wikimirrors that have already picked up the undiscussed ASCII-ization of Unicode font. That's all this restore is; reverting a Unicode-to-ASCII font change that has been locked by an edit redirect. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Cantonese words and phrases doesn't include diacritics. I would support bak lauh duhng laai (no Yale diacritics) as 2nd choice and the undiscussed ASCII-ization as last. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * support per In ictu oculi. ༆ (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2012 (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.

Alternative move to Cantonese transcription
Following a recent move revert by a relatively new user, I've taken the suggestion to simply move the page to a new title using a Cantonese (Jyutping) transcription. Since this alternative move wasn't the main subject of the previous RM discussion, it is beyond the remit of the RM closure and should be seen as my being WP:BOLD as an editor. Deryck C. 14:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 *  Carried over from User talk:Deryck Chan  I see the accent-stripping immediately before my alternative move as an attempt to WP:move war against an RM closure, and has been informed  that their move was inappropriate.
 * The alternative move to a Cantonese transcription was actually suggested by P.T. Aufrette and doesn't "devalue the input" of the RM. As I said in the closure, I think the result of the RM should be interpreted as "prefer Bắt đầu từ nay to Bat dau tu nay, no obvious preference on Vietnamese vs. Cantonese". I wrote in addition during the move that we are free to start another RM to discuss whether we want a Cantonese transcription or the Vietnamese original.
 * If move locking is seen as a problem, that's easy - I can just stick an R from template onto Bat dau tu nay to lock it as well... Deryck C. 10:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Deryck, except that I think we've all had rather enough of locking with R from after undiscussed moves. This whole RM was the result of a User making mass moves and then locking them with a R from. And redirects have been misused for conducting wars against native language spellings in the past leading in at least one case to editors who do that being blocked. You should at least I think have motioned the upcoming boldness on Talk here before being bold, given this background. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you really really insist, I'm happy to give the token gesture of moving back to Bắt đầu từ nay and then starting an RM on the alternative move. Although this would be equivalent to giving you your move in WP:BRD and is procedurally correct because it's also equivalent to my using admin powers to revert Liang Pengyuan and myself, I'd rather not do it because it does now require admin power and generates ugly log entries. Unless you really insist. Deryck C. 10:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Deryck, I'm not insisting, far from it. Personally I would think that if you want to use some admin magic for something more useful, there are other more egregious examples of where Vietnam articles have been messed around. The particular problem the RM was addressing here was an undiscussed move and lock of an article in Category:Vietnamese words and phrases to some new non-language, "stripped Vietnamese" perhaps, which looked like mangled Tagalog and had no support in any sources - which are in Cantonese and full-Vietnamese only. Moving to Cantonese at least addresses that problem. Moving it back to Vietnamese doesn't achieve anything for other articles in Category:Vietnamese words and phrases more in need of repair. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Like this one for example if you reverted User Liang_Pengyuan's move, then a revert of this would be a good candidate. We shouldn't all really have to go through this rigmarole every time someone undiscussed-moves and locks a redirect should we?
 * As far as Bắt đầu từ nay the category Category:Vietnamese words and phrases needs moving from the Cantonese to the redirect so it shows up correctly, in italics, but in Vietnamese, on the Category listing. Then, for me at least, we're done. I can do this myself. I can't restore the example above. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not too worried about the category listing. Your suggestion sounds good, but I'd wait till a few others to weigh in before taking action. Deryck C. 13:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion is continued at User talk:In ictu oculi.
 * Actually it isn't because I've snipped it as being a duplicate of what's now in page history here anyway, but that's fine. Thanks for your time Deryck. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)