Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

RfC

The result is No Consensus. There is a very minor opinion here that may not reflect a broader opinion if there had been more participation. This opinion leans toward the proposals banner being restored. However, as the comments from some of the respondents are non committal and simply link to other discussions, there is no clear outcome. Recommendation: Editors with an interest in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) should relist/restart this RfC which should be more widely publicised in order to attract sufficient participation to determine a clear consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This page was changed from proposal status to guideline status 11 February 2011 without discussion on Talk page. Page appears never to have had either a proposal, nor a seconder, and principally reflects the views of 1 editor. (Q1) should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) be returned from Category:Wikipedia naming conventions to Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals until it has gone through a consensus editing, proposal and adoption process? (Q2) if the answer to Q1 is yes then Q2 should the {proposed} banner be restored, or alternatively replaced with the {historical} banner? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC) -Note: Category:Wikipedia naming conventions page header states:[reply]

Those pages that have not received general consensus should be categorized in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals. For a short introduction on how to go from proposal to naming conventions guideline, see and the intro of Wikipedia:Article titles.

As long as the proposal has no wider acceptance it should not be classed as a guideline. Agathoclea (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Q1: return to proposals. Q2: {historical} banner restored until there is more activity and revisions on this page, leading to a broader RFC.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has just pulled this after 30 days, if there are no objections I'll post a request for an admin to close. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this RfC from WP:ANRFC. Kauffner (talk · contribs), who changed the guideline, wrote that he did it on the basis of the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vietnam&diff=prev&oldid=413311493#Consensus_points. In ictu oculi (talk · contribs), I have not read that lengthy discussion, but if it didn't support the principles in this proposal, then I agree that the guideline banner should be removed and the proposals banner restored. Cunard (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RFC with a large participation in July 2012. No one questioned the guideline status of this page at that time. Antonio Hazard (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2013 (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.

Need to run it again

User:Agathoclea, User:Obiwankenobi, User:Cunard please note close above. Antonio Hazard was blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive at 01:33 2 Sept. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe fix the thing first? In any case I've deleted entirely the diacritics section which was the main problem as being the main 1-person conflict with RfCs and RMs. I also added capital P and D for province and district (per earlier discussion here, and checked with Colonies Chris, could probably check further). Also moved the Nanyue/Jiaozhi material to the end. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem was that the page did not reflect consensus and therefore should not have been deemed a guideline. Now the disruption has officially ended it is easier to change the guidline to actually reflect consensus. Agathoclea (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think you're right, and it's needless duplication to re-run a RfC to remove one editor's addition of a guideline tag from a page that never had a RfC and then run another RfC to really adopt as a guideline. Besides, it'll be 2 weeks before the Talk:Gia Bình District RfC is closed, we don't know what the outcome will be yet. As you say, better to fix it. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback about short name of Vietnamese people

In Administrative Documents, I think you should not use only the last name of Vietnamese. It is very weird for Vietnam names. Each word of Vietnam has only one syllable, Vietnam are not Western countries. Western countries have words with many syllables. So, if you call Khiêm or Minh, it is too short too too short. For example, the name Ibrahimovic have 5 syllables and it is very well for a short name. But in Vietnam, when you write the short name "Khiêm", it is very very short and weird. We should write full name for Vietnamese names if the full name is not too long (from 2-3 words in Vietnam's name), such as Nguyễn Khắc Khiêm, Nguyễn Duy Khiêm, Trần Minh Mẫn, Huỳnh Mẫn Đạt. In Vietnam, you can not call Nguyễn Du by Du or call Nguyễn Huệ by Huệ. It does not respect them. They are the famous people of Vietnam and contribute for Vietnam. So you must call full names for the respecting. In Vietnam, we have many people named Huệ and Du, and you can not call a too short name by Huệ or Du, it is not suitable for Vietnamese culture. We are Vietnam, not Western nations, please repect. Thank you. At the similar, footballers of Vietnam contribute for Vietnam, so you should call them by full name to distinguish a person to a different person and respect them. For a long name (from 4 words in name to over), such as Nguyễn Trần Huyền My, Nguyễn Cao Kỳ Duyên, Nguyễn Trần Thị Minh Duyên you can call them by Huyền My, Kỳ Duyên, Minh Duyên for the short names. That is OK. But you can not call Tôn Nữ Thị Ninh - a famous person of Vietnam, you can not call her by a short name "Thị Ninh" because in Vietnam, no one call name of a woman by "Thị+last name".Especially, Tôn Nữ Thị Ninh is a politician and all of Vietnam call her by full name, not "Ninh" or "Thị Ninh". With the men's names, such as Trần Văn Cường, Trần Văn Lực you can call them by Văn Cường, Văn Lực. In Vietnam, men usually have the middle name "Văn", women usually have the middle name "Thị". But no one call a girl or a woman by the short name "Thị+last name". Otherwise, with men, if they have middle name "Văn", you can call them by "Văn+last name" in the Administrative Documents. Thanks for watching! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usainnguyen (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this comment. You should mention a person by his full name "Ngo Bao Chau" or "Mr Chau", not only Chau.Future ahead (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a natural desire to avoid repetition in a biography by shortening the name. For Western names, the usual practice of this encyclopedia is to use only the family name, a simplification of the traditional formulation "Mr./Mrs. LastName". As Usainnguyen points out, referring to an individual by their given name alone (e.g. "Diệm" rather than "Mr. Diệm") is just as informal in Vietnamese as it would be in English. What is the general practice in English-language literature? At a cursory glance, I see examples both of repeating the full name each time and of using just the given name (as recommended by this proposal), but a more comprehensive review would be welcome. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 06:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:NCVIET" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:NCVIET. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Wikipedia:NCVIET until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 03:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:VIETCON" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:VIETCON. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Wikipedia:VIETCON until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 03:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant RMs August 2020

The entire en.wp corpus uses full Latin alphabet diacritics through all titles and article bodies. This was established 10 years ago and kept the peace since. But for reference noting two recent RMs challenging this:

Talk:Võ_Nguyên_Giáp#Requested_move_7_August_2020 7 Aug to 23 Aug 2020, closed in favour of status quo.
Talk:Nguyễn_Văn_Thiệu#Requested_move_13_August_2020, multimove of 5 VN bios: 7 Aug to 23 Aug 2020, closed in favour of status quo.

In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies. Just going to leave that one here. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]