Talk:Vehicle registration plates of Vietnam

RfC: Letter F

The text was changed from:
F, J, W and Z are skipped, and the Vietnamese Đ is used.
to:
The current scheme omits the letters I, J, O, Q and W, and includes the Vietnamese Đ.
The rationale for the change was "Changed skipped letters to match those in the Vietnamese version of the article". The text is unsourced, so I recommend adding a source to verifiability. Lemongirl942's source may be useful. If no source is added, the text can be removed per Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Cunard (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The abstract of this page includes a line that read: "F, J, W and Z are skipped, and the Vietnamese Đ is used.", but immediately on the bottom-right there's a Vietnamese plate that read "51F-178.12", is the text wrong or was the plate accidentally issued with the letter F? But from my view as the numbers reached 178.12(17812?) it hardly looks like just a simple mis-issuance. File:Vietnamese_plate_for_Ho_Chi_Minh_City.jpg Varxo (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not really reliable sources but that said the fact the letters are skipped does not have a citation, I would just add a citation required tag to the skipped comment and see if somebody can come up with a reliable source that they are skipped, if nothing comes of it then remove the sentence. MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did an image search and came up with multiple examples including F. The Vietnamese version of the article (machine translated) says "civilian vehicles do not use the letters I, J, O, Q, W; R only for car trailers". The Vietnamese article also has a lengthy list of example numbers for various cities. Some of those have Z and a few have Đ. Roches (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point, but images are not valid sources. Deriving facts from images' observation is OR. However, regardless of any image, a citation is missing hence the sentence should be removed. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I informed a couple of relevant WikiProjects. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This RfC does not seem very well formed. I recommend that whoever is concerned in the matter consult someone in Admin for guidance. JonRichfield (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to say the "images are not valid sources. Deriving facts from images' observation is OR" is hopelessly an over-generalisation, but in this case it is definitely valid, because we are shown various VN licence plates without a clear basis for their official validity or their relevance to the stated principles such as say "F, J, W and Z are skipped, and the Vietnamese Đ is used", without citations or comment on how reliably they are used. As things stand, the problem is not that the images are acceptable or unacceptable, but that the whole article needs supportable documentation and rationale. One difficulty might be that if all the available documentation is in Vietnamese, then it would be of little use in an English article. I for example could no more read Vietnamese than Minoan. This is a criticism of myself rather than of Vietnamese, but it remains a problem to the article in context. JonRichfield (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I managed to find this. Not sure how useful it will be as I cannot read Vietnamese. But I noticed that the table in the article seems to be similar to the one on page34/35 of this source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also page 28/29/30. Looks like something related. I google translated some text to get c) Plate white background, black letters and numbers, serial number plates used in turn one in the following 20 letters: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N, P, S, T, U, V, X, Y, Z. Looks like I,J,O,R,Q,W are skipped. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having said all that, I think JonRichfield is absolutely right. An RfC is maybe not the best venue for a question such as this, which hinges on matters of fact, not editor opinion. KDS4444 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but I personally think RfCs are useful sometimes, at least to attract some attention to an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2016 (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.