Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive 3

Page still at odds with RfC
The page still represents the view of a vocal minority on use of Vietnamese compared to RfCs and RMs, therefore the "current discussion" tag stays. or the page is edited to reflect the recently expressed view of the majority. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This document should conform to WP:UE and other such Wikipedia policies. No proposal to revise it was adopted in the RfC. I don't see anyone other else suggesting that it be downgraded to essay status. To revert all improvements without any discussion of their merits is like holding the document hostage. Shouldn't a document like this contain a list of English-language references to consult? Kauffner (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Quote: Shouldn't a document like this contain a list of English-language references to consult?
 * Yes, if you follow Wikipedia guidelines on choosing article titles, and select the most representative and widely-known form—in plain English where this is appropriate (i.e. almost always), then it would be valuable to have a list of reliable references to consult. Wikipedia guidelines on choosing article titles are intended to benefit the English Wikipedia user, most of whom can't read, write or remember complex Vietnamese diacritics, and who can probably not even guess what the plain English version would be. But surely IIO would oppose this, essentially saying that Wikipedia guidelines are irrelevant if you have a large enough private army. LittleBen (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Status
I was just taking a look at all the discussions awaiting closure on WP:AN. What's the status of this discussion? Does anything need closing? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If no-one can be bothered to reply by the end of the week I will close the discussion as no consensus. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Better to let an uninvolved editor close it, preferably an admin. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Close what? There are several different possible sections that could be closed. It is a total mess. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And with regards to getting an admin to close it - well it has been sitting on WP:AN since mid-August, I think you have to take what you get. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A "No consensus" close is fine with me. There were two issues the RfC was supposed to deal with: the language of the guideline, and what do about the page moves I made last year. But there wasn't much focus on either of those. For several weeks, I thought my original proposal would be approved. But just before the RfC was delisted, three or four editors arrived who seemed to be more interested in bashing me over various grievances than in Vietnamese titles. Kauffner (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason those involved in the above discussion would want an uninvolved editor to write a summary? Otherwise, we can just remove the request from WP:AN/RFC and quietly slip back into the night. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be a better idea. Admins. and editors who are not afraid of being intimidated for being fair and neutral seem to be getting few and far between.  Wikipedia may fall flat on its face in the not-so-far future for lack of admins. who are willing to spend all their time policing abusive users and abusive editors. LittleBen (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the other side of the coin is that there is generally no adequate way to ask for a review. Currently you can complain on the admin's talk page, but that doesn't ever seem to achieve anything or you can complain on ANI which just creates a bunch of drama. I suppose you have deletion review and now move review, but they don't cover every topic, and they are pretty heavyweight.
 * For example there is no ability to easily ask for a triumvirate close if you think the original close wasn't performed correctly. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Remove guideline header?
Haven't removed it but I don't see how this header can stand given that this is a 1-man essay at odds with RfC majority and RM results. In any case I have restored the essay header which is more representative (look at edit history) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There were dozens of people involved in the RfC, but no one else even suggested demoting the page. Kauffner (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No I think most editors would have been happy if the "guideline" had simply accepted the view of the RfC majority and stopped pushing a disruptive hobby horse. Then it might have been "elevated" to guideline status once there was support. The page cannot be "demoted" when it has never had any community approval in the first place. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who elected you to speak for "the community"? This page conforms to WP:DIACRITICS and WP:PLACE, both very well established guidelines. Kauffner (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the point, I wasn't elected obviously, you were. Otherwise how do we explain that you are completely ignoring the majority of opinion of the RfC you yourself initiated. Seriously where on wikipedia is there any mechanism which doesn't end up with Kauffner's opinion counting for more than a majority of other editors? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This type of personal criticism is most unhelpful. After all the articles you have moved on your own, you're a fine one to be going on like this. It is clear by now that your only interest in Vietnamese place names, V-pop, K-pop, Korean royalty, etc. etc. is that you following me around and post nonsense like this for reasons of spite. Kauffner (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If IIO thinks that he can improve it, or even create a better guideline, he's free to propose this. Otherwise his opposition to other people doing so can only be spite—or maybe he thinks there's no need for any guidelines, as he and his army can get away with ignoring them? LittleBen (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * LittleBenW, the 23 editors in the RfC who supported previous en.wp consensus on using Vietnamese names for Vietnamese people and places are not my "private army" - the were simply editors who saw the RfC notice without being canvassed. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Kauffner, I am more than happy with the 23 majority view as expressed in the RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

VIETCON shortcut removed
This recent 18:21, 16 October 2012‎ shortcut creation doesn't have any consensus. There is no agreed convention for Naming conventions Vietnamese. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether it's essay or a convention, it can still have a shortcut. Kauffner (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true. User:Prolog/Diacritical marks is just a one-person essay, but it has the misleading shortcut WP:DGUIDE to suggest that it's a guideline. But the list of references is similar to that listed here.  LittleBen (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is true. But in that case (i) User:Prolog/Diacritical marks is simply an essay of fact, (ii) it is an essay which is parallel to a reality reflected in the en.wp practice which is accepted by all except for all but a tiny handful of editors, and that tiny noisy handful being in the main editors who don't contribute to affected bio or geo articles anyway, (iii) there is no attempt by the author of an essay to misrepresent it as a guideline. In this case we have an essay counter RfC and RM consensus presenting itself as a guideline. Or a guideline stub which has been essayized, either way. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether (in your opinion) it is an "essay of fact" or not, it doesn't have consensus and has not been accepted as a guideline. The shortcut name "DGUIDE" surely misrepresents it as a guideline. Feel free to discuss improvements to "Naming conventions (Vietnamese)", but simply replacing it with one sentence "We will use diacritics everywhere, without any supporting references, because not to do so is unethical" is neither an improvement nor true and acceptable. LittleBen (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See above. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Essay tag removed again
I see the essay tag has been removed again, well beyond 3RR. It should be restored to make clear that it is the work of one editor at odds with his own recent RfC result. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What I've done is rather than restore with essay, replace with


 * The questionable template below, is still in place, though it's not clear that this draft has ever been adopted, or even if it has, it is evident that as it currently stands it is counter the recent RfC.


 * A lot of other pages in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals such as WP:Naming conventions (Arabic) have the heading template


 * Although that wouldn't be totally the case here. As some of the general geographical content may have the support of editors? Ideally a header template halfway between the two, or simply the discussion tags at the moment would perhaps be best.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I made some edits to the page:
 * 02:35, 3 December 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+962)‎ . . Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) ‎ (→‎Factors to consider: Sources may vary between different editions. For example the original edition of the ..) (top)
 * 02:20, 3 December 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+553)‎ . . Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) ‎ (→‎Anglicized vs. Vietnamese forms: added "some English coinages, such as Ho Chi Minh Trail, which is known as the "Trường Sơn trail" ("Long Mountain trail") in Vietnam")
 * 02:12, 3 December 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+71)‎ . . Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) ‎ (edited to "When selecting a title, consider Wikipedia guidelines on sources WP:RS.")

In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not the Vietnam War project
These are the conventions for Wikiproject Vietnam, not for a Vietnam War project. So I don't think that giving a special mention to The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War can be justified. In any case, don't we want to follow the updated 2011 edition? This edition uses conventional English-language spellings. As this example illustrates, there is no trend toward increased use of Vietnamese diacritics in English, at least not off-Wiki. Kauffner (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It serves in the text as an example that using the Vietnamese alphabet may vary even between different editions of the same source. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation by Vietnamese name
If the essay is ever going to be put forward for consensus support to advance to guideline status, it should address the issue of disambiguation by Vietnamese name as Thanh Hoa (disambiguation):

Yig Mgo, as you noted this, do you have a view on how to handle this? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A pronunciation guide and Chinese in a Vietnamese disambiguation page? A DAB is supposed to include only what is needed for navigation. Many of these subjects didn't even exist in 1918, so they may never have had Sino-Viet names. Kauffner (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll see what Yig Mgo says, it was his question. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. The page with title Thanh Hoa must be a disambiguation, and all other pages must have diacritics in their names. Against, I'm tired with some people who keep discriminating Vietnamese diacritics. ༆ (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Intro
The intro provides some basic information about Vietnamese writing. Many editors assume that Vietnamese is written in Chinese characters, so there are various misconceptions that need to be addressed. This material has been in the guideline for quite a while now, and I don't recall anyone complaining about it in the RfC. The official result of the RfC was "no consensus." In addition, I would think that one "under discussion" tag would be sufficient. Kauffner (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The result of the RfC was overwhelming opposition to your proposal with 23 of the non-canvassed respondents supporting spelling Vietnamese places and people with Vietnamese alphabet and should be reflected in this draft naming conventions. I say draft since it has never been adopted, has it? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is this:

When was this adopted? And even if it was adopted, given recent RfC support for use of Vietnamese alphabet, this tag is misleading. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your method of vote counting is arbitrary, and no one appointed you vote counter. It was a close vote, and it was reasonably closed as no consensus. No one in the RfC even suggested the sort of changes that you are making. At this point, it is just another old discussion anyway. Kauffner (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kauffner
 * 23 is 23, 23 voted for use of Vietnamese alphabet.
 * Only 10 non-canvassed voters voted against use of Vietnamese alphabet. Plus 6 more directly canvassed by yourself, = 16.
 * That is not a blank cheque to do the opposite.
 * As it stands that recent RfC is more valid than your 1 vote. Do you understand this? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Many editors participated in the RfC, but no one else suggested that the status of the page be changed, nor did anyone propose any of the other changes that you have made in the last week. Kauffner (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * The edit history shows a 1-man essay, not an adopted Wikipedia Naming Convention.
 * If you weren't willing to accept the views of others you should not have opened the question to RfC, but you did and 23 is 23 is 23, 23 voted for use of Vietnamese alphabet. 23 voting for use of the Vietnamese alphabet puts into question the content you have written here. To be honest it would perhaps be better if you simply moved this page to your sandbox. But as it stands we have had an RfC and now if the page is to be put in a shape that can eventually be agreed on then at the very least this page should not say the exact opposite of the RfC majority.
 * Do you understand this?
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It makes no difference how many people wrote it. It was stable for over a year despite the RfC and numerous editors commenting on it. It should be not revised with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. (A guideline's "stability and consistency are important to the community.") Taking off the intro and putting in a second discussion tag doesn't even make sense. Kauffner (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Kauffner, it makes an enormous difference, and it simply wasn't discussed, nor adopted as a guideline. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, whether it is the 23 majority on RfC or 3x people Agathoclea and Dr Blofeld's comments here now override WP:OWNER, or 1x person consensus. But if you want to propose it for guideline status at some future point it must reflect the recent RfC and WP:VN RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which Wikipedia guideline was "adopted"? It's not a big deal to me whether the page has guideline header or not. I'm not a big fan of headers myself, and I'm fine with no header. The header issue did not even come up in the RfC, so other editors do not seem to have a problem with it. Despite the fact that you've canvassed people, they still did not come and express support for any of the changes you made. The RfC was "no consensus" and recent RMs have gone both ways. The guideline never said that the titles had to be written without diacritics. It just explained the factors involved. The references are not selectively chosen. At least one uses diacritics. I reverted to a version of the page you edited, something that you contributed several items to. Kauffner (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's not a big deal good. The guideline header stays off. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that you are talking Frommer's and Lonely Planet very seriously as geography references over at Talk:Medjugorje. We can certainly use them here. Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I am. WP:RS "the best such sources" will vary from context to context. In the case of the Balkans WP:RS "the best such sources" includes Frommers, Lonely Planet, EU Publications. In the case of Vietnam WP:RS "the best such sources" may include other things. Anyway, thank you for having agreed to keep the guideline box off. I hope we can have a productive collegiate discussion with more active editors involved.
 * Now, having made progress on this, what about the other issue - agreeing to use WP:RM process for moves? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

More moves contrary RfC and contrary RMs
Kauffner, I notice that you are again moving geo articles contrary to the RfC result and contrary to the RMs at Talk:Cần Thơ and Talk:Cà Mau. Do you understand that moving articles contrary to RfC and RM results is controversial? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No he did not move contrary to the RMs. He simply "forgot" that that he removed the talkpage notice refering to said RM first. Agathoclea (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the timing of the two-bites of the cherry with db-G6 makes it a bit difficult to believe that removing the same RM twice before moving articles counter RM twice was an accident. What would be good would be a coherent answer in normal human-to-human conversation from Kauffner to explain this. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Culture
 * Talk:Chữ Nôm 3 January 2007
 * Talk:Hán Tự 28 January 2007
 * Talk:Đàn tính 10 July 2012
 * Talk:Bun cha 9 August 2012
 * Talk:Pho 9 August 2012
 * Talk:Cơm tấm 9 August 2012
 * Talk:Bún bò Huế 16 August 2012
 * Talk:Bánh bò 24 August 2012
 * Talk:Lạc Long Quân 4 October 2012

Geography
 * Talk:Cà Mau 6 July 2010
 * Talk:Cần Thơ 7 August 2011
 * Talk:Cà Mau 24 August 2012
 * Talk:Bắc Kạn 21 November 2012

Biography
 * Talk:Đặng Hữu Phúc → Huu Phuc Dang 16 July 2011
 * Talk:Vo Chi Cong 30 September 2011
 * Talk:Hồ Quý Ly 24 August 2012
 * Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên 24 August 2012
 * Talk:Ngô Bảo Châu 4 October 2012
 * Talk:My Linh 20 October 2012

The above is an incomplete list. Should have others added in. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Capitalizing Province etc.

 * See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam — Preceding unsigned comment added by NVanMinh (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Where possible, articles on cities (thành phố) and towns (thị xã) use Placename  . Where disambiguation is required,  City, Province  is used. Urban districts (quận) and rural distrists (huyện) are given in the form  Placename District  . Where disambiguation is required,  Placename District, Province  is used."
 * Can I ask, where is the link to where this was agreed, and who discussed it? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "(Rvt per WP:BRD. This is supposed to be a shortcut, not a place the dispute the MOS) (undo)" ...what kind of edit summary is this? Kauffner, you've been asked a question. Please answer it. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What can I say? I was entertaining my girl and the MOS emergency slipped my mind. If you are trying to get it changed, this is the wrong place to bring it up. This style was Dr. Blofeld's idea. No one objected, so I put it in. "Words denoting political divisions—from empire, republic, and state down to ward and precinct—are capitalized when they follow a name," according to Chicago Manual of Style, §8.55. Kauffner (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect Dr. Blofeld, but the question is: where is the link to where this was agreed, and who discussed it? Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff. Kauffner (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if a place needs dabbing always use highest level division first, province. However if there is more than one place of the same name within a given province, dab by xxx, District. If there is more than one within a District use xxxx, (commune). OK? I prefer capital letters for Province and District, most seem to agree, although India and one or two others are an exception. (However I'm doing Turkey which is all dabbed for a reason to ease the gap between English and Turkish wikipedia. Eventually those which do not need a suffix which be moved to plain names so ignore what I'm doing for Turkey.) Hope this helps and look forward to seeing some coverage of Vietnam!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  10:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dr Blofeld. Provisionally then moves to articles can probably go to Technical Requests at WP:RM where they are visible, no WP:VN article should ever go near db-G6. And also no article should have WP:VIETPLACE cited when stripping Vietnamese spellings counter the RMs and RfC majority. Does this sound reasonable? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, generally we use local spelling unless Cyrillic or Oriental based. The opinion on using diacritics for Vietnam seems to be mixed, I personally see no reason why we can't redirect the plain letters to the titles, but if you want to use plain letters I'm OK with that.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dr B. I agree, we've just had an RfC that agrees. At this stage however, if we can simply prevent db-G6 and undiscussed moves against that RfC it will be a major acheivement. For these capitalization moves there's no problem as long as (1) they are transparent - which means WP:RM or WP:RM Technical. (2) they aren't a cover for diacritic stripping at the same time. Kauffner, will you agree to that? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Any English-language publication that you might reasonably use as a reference for the spelling of geographic names takes off Vietnamese diacritics: Merriam-Webster's Geographic Dictionary (recommended by CMOS), Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, Oxford's Atlas of the World, American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford Dictionaries, etc, etc. References of this kind tend to use far more diacritics than secondary sources do. The English-language media based in Vietnam has does not use them either. Do we want our copy to look like it is written by English-professionals, or by amateurs pushing non-English usage? Kauffner (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kauffner, can you do this? Can you stop making undiscussed moves and db-G6? Can you use WP:RM and Tech Moves? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This sounds heartfelt, although I can't imagine why you would care. Regardless who proposes the RM, you can still use it as another forum to denounce me. If it wasn't this, you'd be complaining about archive bots, moves from last year, or something else, so whatever. Kauffner (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kauffner, can you use the RM process rather than undiscussed moves? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why putting extra load on other people by channeling everything through WP:RM? Kauffner should stop now, WP Vietnam should get a convention, and then Kauffner can enforce it. WP:RM is superfluous. NVanMinh (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with RMs is that In ictu oculi fills them up with personal criticism, turning them into "bity cesspits," as he himself puts it. Kauffner (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dr. B asked me to contribute. I don't know anything specific to Vietnam, but unless something about its political/geographical organization is out of the ordinary, place names should be at Placename . If disambiguation is required, it usually should be done at the highest order level subdivision that clearly identifies the place to the exclusion of ambiguous other places. So, if the first level subdivisions are Provinces, and second level Districts. If there is a Foo in Prov1 and Foo in Prov2, and neither is so clearly the more commonly referred to Foo, then we have Foo, Prov1 and Foo, Prov2, and a disambiguation page at Foo. If there are two Foos in Prov2, in Dist1 and Dist2, and neither is so clearly the more commonly referred to Foo, then we have Foo, Dist1 and Foo, Dist2, and a disambiguation page at Foo. If one Foo is by far the more commonly referred to Foo, than it may get pride of place at Placename, whilst other Foos are to be disambiguated as described. For an example (from Iran), see Tidar. There is only one Tidar in Lorestan Province (province=1st level subdivision), but alas Hormozgan Province has two - in separate counties (counties=2nd level subdivisions). Generally, administrative subdivisions and neighborhoods use parentheses rather than commas to introduce the disambiguating term, but that generalization is not a universal custom here either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are still whole bunch of articles with capitalizing "Province". So I say we must restore the upper case position for "Province" for all of Vietnamese province articles. ༆ (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason is not that there still are a lot, but it is the Wikipedia style. With the weird exception of the articles about districts of India, it is always "Foo Class" instead of "Foo class" for toponymes. NVanMinh (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization status
I reverted to pre-Kauffner upper case ("Foo Province"), to have South East Asia and East Asia in the same format: NVanMinh (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * text in some province articles
 * the templates in Category:Vietnam district templates
 * Template:Districts of Central Highlands
 * Template:Vietnam Provinces Image Map

Capitalization move requests
Maybe an admin can speedy these. NVanMinh (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Cà Mau peninsula → Cà Mau Peninsula – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Kiên Giang province → Kiên Giang Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Hậu Giang province → Hậu Giang Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Hòa Bình province → Hòa Bình Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Hải Dương province → Hải Dương Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Hà Nam province → Hà Nam Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Ha Giang province → Ha Giang Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Gia Lai province → Gia Lai Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Đồng Tháp province → Đồng Tháp Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Đắk Nông province → Đắk Nông Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Đắk Lắk province → Đắk Lắk Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Cao Bằng province → Cao Bằng Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Cà Mau province → Cà Mau Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Binh Duong province → Binh Duong Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Binh Thuan province → Binh Thuan Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Bac Ninh province → Bac Ninh Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Bình Định province → Bình Định Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – Bắc Giang province → Bắc Giang Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) – An Giang province → An Giang Province – Revert capitalization to pre-Kauffner status and current consensus. NVanMinh (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Voting at : Talk:An Giang province. NVanMinh (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics
Kauffner and me would like to remove diacritics. Several others not. I for now stay away from any moves, because I would like one central decision and not hundreds of little fights. So I oppose any moves by Kauffner for now. I think that it also should be some high level decision, and not only a Vietnam project decision. It should be declared what languages can have diacritics and why; and why others not. NVanMinh (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * NVanMinh, we've just had a RfC on this (see above) and the majority view was 23:16 (or 23:10 excluding canvassed !votes). All Latin alphabet languages on en.wp have Latin alphabets, except for some disagreement on Vietnamese. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the guidelines on diacritics:
 * WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"
 * WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage";
 * WP:EN: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).";
 * MOS:FOREIGN: "adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article";
 * WP:PLACE: "English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name." Kauffner (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kauffner,
 * Unfortunately selectively misciting guidelines does not answer the question regarding why you are moving articles counter RM results again? 24 November 2012 27 November db-G6 10 December?
 * Do you intend to keep making such undiscussed moves? Yes or No.
 * Can we have an answer please. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So the latest is from 10 December, this is before I mentioned my objection to any more partisan moves.
 * I support reversion of any move of this kind, that happens from now on. All moves should be done under consensus specifically about VIET place names. I have several reasons against diacritics, but if consensus is on the other side, then all I would do is to try to convince people - but not by moving articles around! And I also would like people of this project vote on the centralized page for reverting to pre-Kauffner capitalization of the provinces: Talk:An_Giang_province. NVanMinh (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"In discussion" tags need to stay
Until there is some willingness to let page reflect RfC majority. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then please discuss, for example discuss this edit. Why is it important to have this material at the top rather than further down? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely one "In discussion" tag is more than enough. What is the benefit of four? The naming conventions for other countries don't even mention exonym or endonyms. Why should that go on top? Kauffner (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * 1. There aren't 4x, there are 3x. The tag says "This section is the subject of a current discussion on the talk page." and 3x different discussions of different sections are ongoing.
 * 2. I see you've inserted again the banner This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow,  but this page doesn't document "an English Wikipedia naming convention", it isn't "a generally accepted standard" and looking at the Talk page history makes it questionable whether there has ever been any support other than from yourself as author "that editors should attempt to follow" what you have written. Please remove this banner and discuss and gain consensus first. Then if all editors agree we may want to add it.
 * 3. exonym or endonyms are just linguistic technical terms for "Anglicized vs. Vietnamese forms." Why should that go in the section 1. Because that is the first section in the current structure. which starts with 1 Anglicized vs. Vietnamese forms.
 * 4. Now, good that we are talking, can you state why you propose "Encyclopædia Britannica or National Geographic that give diacritics for other languages, generally drop Vietnamese diacritics" should be placed in the lede ahead of all other sections? Is there a rationale for why this sentence should even be in the guideline, let alone placed as lede? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted to the pre-dispute version of article, per WP:BRD. To have four "current discussion" banners in such a brief document is completely unnecessary. I am fine with no banners. No one other than you has expressed support for any of the changes you made, despite the fact the you invited several editor here in the hope that they would. Many editors participated in the RfC, but no one else has suggested that the guideline banner be removed. Kauffner (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Kauffner
 * If we revert to "pre-dispute version" then the banner before you changed it was:


 * Check the above YigMgo also objected to your 1-man editing of this "guideline" contrary to the RfC conclusion.
 * I think it would be best if you moved this draft to your sandbox if you are unwilling to discuss.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "guideline" tag again as contrary to (1) RfC majority, (2) that it has never been approved as a guideline. I propose to now re-add proposed. tag. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would a brief document need four "in discussion" tags? I've never seen another document with more than one. Dozens editors participated in the RFC. No one else suggested that the document needed such tags, let alone four of them. Kauffner (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Kauffner, it certainly needs the proposed tag. It also needs at least one discussion tag. This is a minor issue. The main thing is that the page shouldn't misrepresent itself as being agreed "Naming conventions" when it is not agreed and when it doesn't reflect RfC result. Let's look at how other non-agreed proposals are headed. Naming conventions (Spanish) doesn't even have on. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See examples of various proposed and inactive pages on Proposed naming conventions and guidelines. You cannot unilaterally appoint a page you have written as a Wikipedia agreed guideline. Even if a draft was in agreement with RfC majority rather than against RfC majority, which this proposal isn't, one person cannot do this. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Or instead of using the {proposed} tag, the {historical} tag such as used on Naming conventions (Arabic) In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * TAGS REMOVED:(cur | prev) 09:48, 17 February 2013‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,093 bytes) (-475)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 538679714 by Kauffner: you don't repeatly make the changes and then discuss. That's not what BRD says. (TW)) (undo)
 * Kauffner, WP:BRD is not a license to insist on misleading presentation of a MOS proposal, and evidently does not apply to a single author presenting his personal work as a consensus wp guideline and repeatedly removing any "proposed" "discussion" "reference" "essay" tags. Wikipedia works on consensus of editors, no User can present a personal set of guidelines as a guideline for en.wp to follow when its first content is contrary to the majority of a RfC the User themselves initiated. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, do you actually think that a document is improved for the reader when numerous tags are added? Because, frankly, I am finding it hard to assume good faith here. You know perfectly well that the RFC wasn't about tags. Kauffner (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 2 ways I believe a draft/proposed guideline is improved by accurate tagging such as {proposal} (1) it invites users who see the draft to input, (2) it avoids misleading users into thinking the proposal is a guideline. The number of tags is a secondary issue. Ideally 1 tag would be sufficient where there was no discussion of individual sections going on. At this point the question would be whether to restore the 1 tag


 * Or if there's no way forward with discussion to use the 1 tag


 * This solves the multiple tags issue. Which one would you prefer? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really follow your theory regarding what is a guideline and what isn't. Was it guideline at the time of the RFC? I don't recall anyone claiming it wasn't a guideline. Kauffner (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any diff link to any discussion by anyone recognising your proposal as a guideline? In any case the opposition of your proposal/draft to the majority of the RfC would render such a diff moot, but it would still be interesting to see. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In view of repeated removal of the {proposed} tag, and in view of removal of recent edits, adding a {historical} tag on the basis that (1) this page has never been approved, (2) we've had an RfC which contradicts the 1-person essay status this page had before, we've also got comment from four editors on this Talk page - myself, Yig Mgo, Agathoclea and Dr Blofeld disagreeing with page content. An essay is fine for a sandbox, but in a guideline location an proposed guideline/essay must be appropriately tagged. See Naming conventions (Indic) for a further example from Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Where ever I edit, I can count on IIO coming by to try to vandalize it. This thing had guideline status for well over a year. Despite the huge amount of discussion it has generation, and no one else ever questioned this status. I wrote it to apply the principles in well-established guidelines such as WP:DIACRITICS, WP:EN, and WP:COMMONNAME to Vietnamese. At the time I rewrote this document, these guidelines had been freshly confirmed by a large RFC. The document is not some royal edict dictating policy, and it doesn't say anywhere that you must write with or without diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This comment "Where ever I edit, I can count on IIO coming by to try to vandalize it" contains 2x personal attacks. On the first point the edits you make within WP:VN project space are of a small number and are frequently disruptive - within this week you have a 3rd time tried to strip the Vietnamese spelling from one of the dynasties, and were reverted, again, by another editor. If you cease making disruptive edits and contribute to the project less of them will be reverted. If you can show a [diff] of a non-disruptive edit that might be different. As far as the second personal attack "vandalize" - see WP:VANDALISM, this proposal already had a {proposal} tag on it until you removed it, if the {proposal} tag is "vandalism" then the original placer of the {proposal} tag is the "vandal" - but in fact it is not. As above if you look at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals you will they all have either {proposal} or {historical}. This is no different. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Titles should be name of the subject as it given in real world English, not in Vietnamese. You fill up one talk page after another with personal kinds attacks of this kind. I don't have to prove anything to you. I don't have any interest in supplying information that would make it easier for you to harass me. You weren't even involved in the Vietnam project when I wrote this stuff. I have been hounded and wikistalked like this for month on end, from one talk page to another. It is freakish and obsessive. You've forum shopped your complaints against me to a dozen admins by now. Kauffner (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Kauffner
 * You are not the centre of the universe. You have not been hounded and wikistalked. You were brought to ANI twice by two other editors for making moves counter RM decisions - I did not even comment on the first time. If you stop removing Vietnamese spelling from titles, text and templates, and start making positive content contributions to the project then there won't be anything anyone can object to.
 * As regards this naming convention proposal, as with Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals all proposals which have never been adopted, or do not have majority support, they all have either {proposal}, as this did before, or {historical}, it's normal. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So what guideline was ever "adopted"? Is there even a process for this? BRD covers only recent edits. It is not a license to go back to a version from years ago. I move titles from Vietnamese to English, and you come along a year later and start objecting. Those readers who want to learn Vietnamese, which I doubt is a large percentage, can always find this information in the opening. If you can object to titles on English Wikipedia being in English, you can object to anything. Kauffner (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Template for RS search
Does anyone think it would be we should mention Google RS in the page? It lets you search various news sites in one shot. Kauffner (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Google RSVP goes further than that: it searches a majority of reliable English-language Vietnamese sites as well as the major encyclopedias and major new sources of Google RS. Surely that should be useful? LittleBen (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Changes
Where there any changes to the WP:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) you wanted to propose beyond adding tags? Perhaps we could make a list and put them up for an RFC, or resolve them some other way. Kauffner (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As above we have just had an RfC, which you yourself initiated and phrased, on use of full Vietnamese spelling in article titles for which the majority view was 23:16 (or 23:10 excluding canvassed !votes). What I propose is removing the anti-Vietnamese spelling content of your proposed guideline to reflect the majority of the recent RfC which you initiated. If you remain opposed to reflecting the majority view of the RfC in your proposed guideline, then it remains an unaccepted proposal and should retain either the {proposal} tag it had earlier, or a {historical} tag. Either way as with the rest of Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals it should have either one tag or the other.
 * If you do want to reopen the RfC in specific relation to the proposed guideline I have no objection to finding a neutral editor to notify all participants of the RfC that it has been reopened (minus the 6 who were canvassed, obviously). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You just want talk about you were robbed in the RFC? I'm sure if we had another one, you'd disrupt again with dozens of kilobytes worth of personal accusations, loud proclamations of why you would never accept the result, enormous photo galleries, and bogus vote counts. Kauffner (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was 23:10 excluding canvassed !votes. Even counting in the 6 extra votes you invited, no one was "robbed". As I said, if you do want to reopen the RfC in specific relation to the proposed guideline I have no objection to finding a neutral editor to notify all participants of the RfC that it has been reopened (minus the 6 who were canvassed, obviously). In the meantime, your proposal remains an unaccepted proposal and should retain either the {proposal} tag it had earlier, or a {historical} tag as with the rest of Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals. Please don't remove the tag again. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No one put you in charge of counting votes. Several editors you're counting as pro-diacritics were notified too, but you have chosen not to subtract their votes. Kauffner (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Kauffner. It is true that after Obiwan saw you selectively inviting people who had opposed full Vietnamese spelling on previous RMs, he did go and invite some of the people you missed. I grant you that. Okay. But even with including those you invited it is still 23:16. It certainly isn't 16:23.
 * As I said if you do want to reopen the RfC in specific relation to your proposed guideline I have no objection to finding a neutral editor to notify participants of the RfC that the RfC has been reopened.
 * Otherwise you are just going to have to learn to live with the views of other editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not like there has been a trend toward greater use of Vietnamese diacritics in recent years. The other encyclopedias don't use them. See Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, or Encyclopedia of Modern Asia. The English-language press in Vietnam has been dropping them in the last few years. You have cited VGP News, one of government news sites. But they stopped using diacritics last year sometime. More relevant to us is Voice of Vietnam, since it is directed specifically at an international audience. It has never used diacritics. Vietweek is the English-language periodical you're most likely to find on newsstands. They use diacritics only for food articles, and they don't run many food articles. For a site in Vietnam, it's easier to leave diacritics in than to take them out. I should know. I've spend a lot of time taking them out. Kauffner (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is all discussed in the archive. I see you have removed the {proposal} banner again. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So you know about all that, but your focus is the tags? If you want to verify it, you can search for some Vietnamese subject at Baomoi, or with the template Google reliable sources on Vietnam for "Nguyen Phu Trong" Kauffner (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes the focus is the tag. The question is has this ever been formally proposed? Looking at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals it appears that the ones that have been formally adopted have been formally proposed. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tag removal yet again

 * I'm sorry to see that User Kauffner's edits on return from block include draft/historical tag gone again. As previous myself, Yig Mgo, User:Agathoclea and Dr Blofeld have all made comment on this. Different comment but no support that this (as it stands) essay, should be representing itself as an adopted convention.
 * Nor should it be in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions when other drafts are in drafts category. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)