Talk:An Giang province

Literal meaning

Article needs literal meaning of province name, and Han Tu. Badagnani 07:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"An Giang" stands for "Peaceful River".--AM ^(talk) 19:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hòa Lộc

Add info about Hòa Lộc, a town known for its mango production. Badagnani 05:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Han Tu again

An Giang territory used to be a part of Long-Xuyen Province until the time of Republic of Vietnam! Offcially, this name is only about 50 years old. Therefore, the name of An Giang hardly has a Han Tu version. Same as before, I ask for source.--AM ^(talk) 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least the etymology of the name (which in this case is undoubtedly Sino-Vietnamese) should be presented in some part of the article, as it should be for any WP article about any place in the world. Badagnani (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this high-doubtedly Han Tu merely is a Chinese translation from a Vietnamese name since the Vietnamese stopped using Han Tu in writing in 1945. And I strongly condemn any reckless copy'n'pasting edits like this addition.--AM ^(talk) 12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the issue. The issue is that at least the etymology of the name (which in this case is undoubtedly Sino-Vietnamese) should be presented in some part of the article, as it should be for any WP article about any place in the world. Badagnani (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK so what is the "Peaceful River" stands right in the infobox, isn't a etymology? Why should we add Chinese character for "An Giang" since this name hardly has a Chinese version? I repeat again, the name of "An Giang" is only 50 years old (the province was established in 1957).

Let's get the things straight here, the problem is that you always try to insert Chinese character into Vietnamese-related articles regardless of the abandoning of Chinese character in Vietnam. Moreover, you simply copied Chinese character from Chinese Wikipedia and pasted it into the article!--AM ^(talk) 10:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the issue. The issue is that removing the origin of any place name from any article on a place at our encyclopedia (regardless of individual editors' tendencies toward nationalism) is wrong, and should not be engaged in, because our users must be foremost in our minds with each and every edit we make. Badagnani (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Giang is mentioned in Dai Nam Nhat thong chi, the Nguyen Dynasty's official gazetteer. The 1960 translation into Vietnamese did provide the Chinese characters for the name as 安江 (p. 37). DHN (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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 all —Darkwind (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Giang province → An Giang Province
Bắc Giang province → Bắc Giang Province
Bình Định province → Bình Định Province
Bac Ninh province → Bac Ninh Province
Binh Thuan province → Binh Thuan Province
Binh Duong province → Binh Duong Province
Cà Mau province → Cà Mau Province
Cao Bằng province → Cao Bằng Province
Đắk Lắk province → Đắk Lắk Province
Đắk Nông province → Đắk Nông Province
Đồng Tháp province → Đồng Tháp Province
Gia Lai province → Gia Lai Province
Ha Giang province → Hà Giang Province
Hà Nam province → Hà Nam Province
Hải Dương province → Hải Dương Province
Hòa Bình province → Hòa Bình Province
Hậu Giang province → Hậu Giang Province
Kiên Giang province → Kiên Giang Province
Cà Mau peninsula → Cà Mau Peninsula

– Revert capitalization to pre-September 2011 status where it was unilaterally changed and soon opposed. It is also current consensus. NVanMinh (consensus is at WP:VIETPLACE which follows WP house style.) (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – no rationale given. Checking one, I find that about half of books use lower case province, which, per MOS:CAPS, suggests that lower case is appropriate in WP. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The applicable section of MOS:CAPS is WP:NAMECAPS. The WP house style for class names within place names is to use class names as upper case. (Mississippi River, Saigon River, Batangan Peninsula, Paracel Islands, Ho Chi Minh City, Moscow Oblast). WP:VIETPLACE applies this house style. NVanMinh (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AP style ("geographic names", pp. 104-105) is to lower case, Chicago (§8.55) is to upper case. This ngram suggests that real world usage is split. There was an editor was felt quite strongly that these titles should be capitalized, so I wrote WP:VIETPLACE to accommodate. Whatever the outcome of this RM, that style is fine with me. Kauffner (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. NVan is correct, we tend to use capital letters for names like this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Blofeld. I've always seen capitalization as traditional in such cases; never known it to be otherwise. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom & Dr. B; we use English capitalization at the English language WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deep into reflection and research on this issue, I think I'm convinced by the nominator's arguments. Given that both types of usage are common enough to support usage here, I can support the change. ༆ (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dr B. and Ser Amantio di Nicolai, except Ha Giang province which should instead be restored to → Hà Giang Province with correct à per reversion of undiscussed move three weeks after contrary 07 Aug 2011 geo RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the nominator has been banned as a sock puppet. Kauffner (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per consensus Moagim (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per consensus -Kai445 (talk) 05:20, 9 January 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.

More moves needed

Per the above consensus these should be moved too:

Thanh Pho Can Tho (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Darkwind (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Emblem of Angiang Province.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 November 2021

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as nominated per the discussion blow. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– A look at sources shows that "province" is not part of the proper names of these provinces, since it is often lowercase in sources in sentences; sources only cap it about half the time (and many of those capped instances are in title-case headings, titles, table entries, etc.). This proposal only looks specifically at the first and last alphabetically, but the result would presumably apply to the rest of the Vietnam province titles as well. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nom self-support – I only just noticed above that these were all moved in 2013 from "province" to "Province" at the suggestion of banned sockpuppet NVanMinh, a pretty sorry history. Anyway, let's take a fresh look. Sources were more in favor of caps back in the 60s for some reason, but in recent decades are pretty thoroughly mixed. Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we default to lowercase when usage is mixed like that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not An Giang, Vietnam? There are literally thousands of similar constructions with capitalization, I note Yuecheng District, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and Moscow Oblast as three. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's about consistent caps in sources. If you're saying some of those others should be considered for downcasing, show us the stats. Certainly for counties in the US, caps are standard (see stats on that county). As for "An Giang, Vietnam", I'm not seeing that in sources; but "An Giang province" is common. Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes caps is used for a U.S. place even when clearly not part of the name: see Washington State. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definite support – Consistent with long-standing guidelines. Tony (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support with additional suggestion per nom and the usual practice when sources are mixed. The opening sentences are telling – e.g., "Yên Bái is a province", not "Yên Bái Provence is a province" – the "province" is a clarifying term, not part of the name. Contrast that with the article about Delaware County, Pennsylvania – it starts by saying "Delaware County is a county". However, shouldn't the first one be simply at An Giang? That would be more WP:CONCISE, and the "P/province" is not necessary for disambiguation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. See also this Quite clearly not meeting the threshold to be capped. While An Giang doesn't need "province" for disambiguation (but Yên Bái does), I am not opposed to retaining it for consistency. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per, well, all of the above. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my personal preference is An Giang (province), but I can't say that the naming guidelines support that construction. I will start a follow-up discussion on Chinese placenames at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles; it has been sufficiently demonstrated why Delaware County should remain capitalized, and I don't know enough about Russia to say anything interesting about oblasts. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We should strive for consistency among all the articles. Some of these could be titled with the Vietnamese name alone but as many cannot, they all should be styled the same and An Giang should be a redirect rather than the article's location. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Inquiry how many of these provinces are not the primary topic because of a city of the same name that is the primary topic? e.g Nam Định v. Nam Định Province User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

力, I sampled the last 5 in the list above and four had corresponding cities. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.