Talk:Cao Bằng

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Southeast Asia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Vinh Long which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 March 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved — JFG ^talk 08:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– It's my understanding that the provinces are primary for these terms. On vi.wiki, for example vi:Cao Bằng is occupied by the province, while the city is disambiguated as vi:Cao Bằng (thành phố). I don't see why en.wiki should be the opposite. We should have at least dab pages, or simply hatnotes per WP:TWODABS (which applies for most of them).

If we agree with moving, there are three ways to disambiguate the cities: A) Cao Bằng City, B) Cao Bằng (city), C) Cao Bằng, Cao Bằng

A would be consistent with Cao Bằng Province but B and C would be consistent with other Vietnamese cities. Timmyshin (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything other than "it's my understanding" to support the provinces as primary? — AjaxSmack 03:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] etc. Anything to support the cities as primary? Timmyshin (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those pageview stats only show me that the province articles are more commonly viewed; it doesn't mean they are the primary topics for the base names (cf. New York vs. New York City). — AjaxSmack 03:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseline dab pages are also fine with me, the main point here is the cities are not primary and ought to be moved. Timmyshin (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- New York (city) probably isn't the best example, as the State continues to be at the base name despite a subsequent RfC that found that the State is not the primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Yet another possibility would be to merge the articles, and just have one for each city and province combined wherever the provincial capital and province names are the same and there's no particular fame attached to either. The few articles I've looked at aren't all that long, and I suspect that the general English reader would call both the city and the province by the shorter name, so for reader experience a merged article would make sense. Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is like saying we should merge New York and New York City. Laurdecl ^talk 12:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and move without leaving a redirect. I concur that the cities are not primary and that we should follow viwiki, since they probably know more about the subject. Laurdecl ^talk 06:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see absolutely no reason to suppress the redirects, and every reason not to. Andrewa (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The only determining factor here for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC determination should be usage in ENGLISH reliable sources. Conventions used by a wiki in another language are irrelevant to title decision-making here. I don't see an argument with relevant basis. --В²C ☎ 19:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any opposing argument with a relevant basis either. There probably isn't a primary topic for these names, so a disambiguation would be ok. Laurdecl ^talk 00:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all. No justification has been forthcoming. And suppressing the redirects to create redlinks for an indefinite period is a particularly bad idea. Andrewa (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand your point. Your proposal of merging the articles is definitely infeasible. For example, Vĩnh Long Province is divided into:

The capital city is only one of its administrative divisions. Timmyshin (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was unrelated to that suggestion above. If anyone is interested in it, discuss in an appropriate section; If not, fine, it's just an idea. But for example there probably isn't a primary topic for these names isn't a convincing argument. Is there, or isn't there? And if there is, what is it? That's what we need to find out.

And whatever the answers, suppressing the redirects seems a bizarre suggestion to me. Have a look at MediaWiki:Movepagetext, which links to Wikipedia:Page mover#Redirect suppression criteria and in turn to WP:G6. Where's the justification for suppressing these redirects? It seems completely contrary to a well-established and sensible policy. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you get the idea of "suppressing the redirects" from? Take Vĩnh Long as an example: if there's no primary topic, the move would make Vĩnh Long a dab page (Vĩnh Long Province & Vĩnh Long City); if the province is the primary topic, then it should redirect to the province. Hope that clarifies, because I'm a little confused by what you have in mind. Timmyshin (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this edit above. Andrewa (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said that because we should either have the provinces at the base title or disambiguation pages, not redirects. I am confused by your suggestion of merging, would you merge NYC and NY because they have the same names? Laurdecl ^talk 12:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move without leaving a redirect would normally mean suppressing the redirect, and that's not necessary in this case and would violate policy. Communication problem. Agree that the end result should be to have a DAB or the province at the base name, if the move goes ahead.
As I said above, NY/NYC is a terrible example... one that has a twelve-year history of controversy, and one in which many of us think that the current titles are still just plain wrong. Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I meant was that we should have DABs, not redirects; I didn't word it correctly. Laurdecl ^talk 06:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a merge; oppose a DAB page as too much unnecessary clutter (the spirit of WP:TWODABS). — AjaxSmack 03:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a position on the original suggestion (to have provinces as the primary)? TWODABS seems to deal with clear primary topics, and there doesn't seem to be one in this case. Laurdecl ^talk 06:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this is a solution looking for a problem. Leave everything as is. — AjaxSmack 03:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Usage in reliable sources seems to tend to add "province" to the name when referring to the province rather than the city. For example: "Mountainous Cao Bang province is one of the most beautiful regions in Vietnam. Cao Bang itself is more prosaic, but it is a useful base to explore the surrounding countryside. The climate is mild here, and winter days can get chilly when a thick fog clings to the banks of the Bang Giang River."[3] So I think the provinces are already at their WP:COMMONNAMES and there is no basis to add City to the city article names. We could add a hatnote link to the province at the top of each corresponding city article, but most already link to the province in the intro so it's unnecessary. --В²C ☎ 17:31, 22 March 2017 (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.