Talk:List of administrative divisions of Vietnam by Human Development Index

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: good start.

North8000 (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging List of Vietnamese regions by Human Development Index into List of administrative divisions of Vietnam by Human Development Index. Both articles treat lists of subdivisions of Vietnam by HDI and use the same presentation. If possible, a merger of both lists into one article would be convenient. 109.12.6.224 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

2023-03-09
@Mathglot: I think there might have been a misunderstanding. What I did was not a merger attempt. I was just trying to revert it to the status quo, before Mr. Updates' edit. I think you should take a look at the history page. Firstly, List of administrative divisions of Vietnam by Human Development Index (the version before before Mr. Updates' edit) and List of Vietnamese regions by Human Development Index were two completely different articles, one about Vietnamese administrative divisions (provinces and municipalities) and one about Vietnamese regions. List of administrative divisions of Vietnam by Human Development Index used data from General Statistics Office of Vietnam, while List of Vietnamese regions by Human Development Index used data from https://globaldatalab.org/. As you said, there was no consensus to merge. On 5 March 2023, it seemed that user Mr. Updates blanked the article List of administrative divisions of Vietnam by Human Development Index and replaced it with data from https://globaldatalab.org/, which only listed Vietnamese regions by HDI, but not to the provincial level (see the current version of List of administrative divisions of Vietnam by Human Development Index and compare it to List of Vietnamese regions by Human Development Index). I think Mr. Updates was trying to update List of Vietnamese regions by Human Development Index, but confused the two article and deleted the content from List of administrative divisions of Vietnam by Human Development Index entirely. Now the two article used the same source. And I repeat it again, as you said, there was no consensus to merge. About verifiability, as I said earlier, the List of administrative divisions of Vietnam by Human Development Index used the data from General Statistics Office of Vietnam, a government agency. The source was cited in the original version. This is an official report from a government agency in Vietnam, and it is published in the agency's official website. I think that is a reliable source. Ltn12345 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:Ltn12345, thanks for your detailed note, I appreciate it. I did misunderstand, as you pointed out, and so my edit summary concerning a merge that apparently didn't happen was wrong. So, what you wanted to do, was to go back to the revision 1114313817 of 21:47, 5 October 2022 by 109.12.6.224, is that right? If that's the intention, I see what happened. In fixing the problem, you restored a version that had the reference to the source you cited above, Vietnam's Human Development Index (2016-2020), however this source does not contain figures that support the data in the table (or any figures at all). I searched the English version of the site and found some population figures, but so far I haven't found HDI figures. Do you know where to find them (in any language)? Currently, the data in the article are entirely unsourced, and it either has to be sourced, or removed entirely, i.e., the entire table. That would leave an article empty of content, and we can't have that, so I would probably redirect it to some other article. This isn't your fault, because you were merely restoring an earlier version of the article, but either that version never had sourcing and should have been deleted or redirected, or it had sourcing and maybe the data on the Vietnamese statistics page is no longer available, or is available on some other page (or maybe at the internet archive). In any case, the table couldn't remain unsourced, so I removed it, replacing with what you see now, which is sourced, and unless you have any idea how to find sourcing for it, we cannot put back the previous revision. I think you just got caught up in the middle of some revisions of content that either never had sourcing, or no longer has sourcing. Thanks again for your clarification. Mathglot (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot, I'm not sure why you can't see it, maybe it's because you don't know the language. But it seemed pretty clear to me that they attached a pdf version of the report to the link cited above. Here is the direct url. You can go to page 29-30 of the report and verify the figures used in the article. Ltn12345 (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ltn12345, it's not particularly a language issue, because you can search the rendered page, or the page html, for the figures in the Wikipedia article, and they are not there, therefore, the Wikipedia article is currently unverified. If pages 29-30 of the report at the second link is the page that has the data that verifies the figures, then that is the page that has to be named and/or linked in the citation, not the first one. Wikipedia cannot know if the owners of the first page will remove the link to the page containing the data tomorrow, rendering our article unsourced.  Any citation must reference a document that contains the words or figures that verify the WP content, not some other page which, at some time in the past, happened to link to the page with the verifying information.
 * In the current revision, the easiest fix is probably just to change the lead, and the last column in the table to "2019"; then the data is correct for the current url that is there now. Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot, I'm getting confused, are we not gonna restore the original version of the article? Because it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the statistics used in the original version itself, just that it was referenced incorrectly. You can double-check the figures, but I have checked, and it matches the source. Pages 29-30 of the report at the second link has the data that verifies the figures. Why don't we restore the original version and change the reference to something like
 * Ltn12345 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Am confused, too. When you say, "the original version", which do you mean? Please give a revision number (like ten digits, or something) or a timestamp from the history page. I think if we change the reference to the right one, then we're good. Can't check your link right now, gotta run; but if you think it's the right one, go ahead and put it in. Mathglot (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot, I was referring to the version right before before Mr. Updates' edit. Ltn12345 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * with your introduction of this link in the citation, replacing the one that was there before (in rev. 1114313817‎ of 21:47, 5 October 2022—the one before Mr Updates' edit), the data on the page is now verifiable, and all is well. Thanks for your work on this. Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)