Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus at this time. Thanks for the civil discussion, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Can Tho
• Ca Mau
• Cao Lãnh → Cao Lanh
• My Tho
• Nam Dinh
• Phan Thiet
• Quang Ngai
• Rach Gia
• Thai Nguyen
• Thanh Hoa
• Thu Dau Mot
• Vinh Yen
• Vung Tau
• Yen Bai

– According to

Here are the links to establish English-language usage: Can Tho, Ca Mau, Cao Lanh, My Tho, Nam Dinh, Phan Thiet, Quang Ngai, Rach Gia, Thai Nguyen, Thanh Hoa, Thu Dau Mot, Vinh Yen, Vung Tau, and Yen Bai. Kauffner (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Very weak support My own reference of National Geographic eschews diacritics for Vietnamese. The majority of Vietnamese articles use no diacritics in their titles. I've never supported use of Vietnamese diacritics, and I suspect that many people who are intimidated by them, like me. OTOH, I don't see any point of moving all of these; it might start another flame war. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I am personally intimidated by Maltese diacritics. I was afraid to visit Wikipedia for nearly a week after a stumbled on
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT) —  AjaxSmack  02:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support For all the reasons laid out by the proposer, who hits the nail right on the head. If its not used by our sources, we shouldn't second guess them and in the process mislead our readers about English convention.Erudy (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support If we settle this, once and for all, now, it will not come back to visit us later - unless English usage elsewhere changes (in which case we should reverse ourselves); is that likely? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support But how about Huế? The diacritics help to distinguish the article title from Hue. BertholdD (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. With the diacritics, is the correct spelling. Omitting the diacritics started for the convenience of non-Vietnamese printers and typists. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • With the diacritics, is the correct spelling. Got any evidence for that? The correct spelling of a place in English is what English-speakers use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is one of a set of group page move requests, which indicates that a lot of pages on Vietnamese topics use diacritics in the page titles. I do not believe the arguments given justify changing the status quo. In particular, I disagree with the interpretation of WP:UE employed here - this is not a situation of multiple terms for the same city (like "Florence" and "Firenze", where we use the term most common in English). These cases involve same term with or without diacritics. Precision and correctness should triumph when unicode permits. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's like
    Peking: different spellings of the same name. A useful Wikipedia will use the one normally employed in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see the absence or presence of diacritics as a completely different spelling. These are the same terms spelled with the same letters, but one form has diacritics on some of the letters. I think
      Midi Pyrenees (currently redirect) is comparable. It's the same term. If the diacritical form is verifiable (official, for geographic entities), I think it should be used. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I think the point is that the diacritical form is not verifiably conventional in English sources. Whatever the semantics are ("different spelling" or "same term with diacritics"), we should do what users of English can be shown to do. That's why
        Hà Nội are all redirects to Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hanoi
        .
        • Mangoes and jackfruit.
          Shànghǎi are not names of the cities in any language. They are romanizations. —  AjaxSmack  02:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly the common usage not to use diacritics for Vietnamese people. Even Britannica, which is generally pro-diacritic, does not use them. I see no reason to go against what, Britannica, National Geographic, etc. do. Jenks24 (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The diacritics are the correct spelling (for all but a few cases where such as Hanoi where there is an established exonym). It doesn't matter that they're unfamiliar to most English speakers. We're an encyclopaedia, we're not here to spoon feed people with only facts they find easy to swallow. Our readers are perfectly capable of mentally stripping off the diacritics if they don't know what they mean. (I include myself in that group - I don't know what they mean, but I do want to know that there's a gap in my knowledge). The very fact that all contributors to the debate can talk about whether or not to use them demonstrates that that's how readers see them -- as unfamiliar markings added to familiar letters, no different from, though less commonly recognised, than other diacritics such as an acute accent or diaresis, which there is little argument about. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per
  Nam Dinh are equally meaningless. —  AjaxSmack  02:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per the preservation of CORRECT Vietnamese name. Without diacritics, people will never know that "Nguyễn Văn Dũng" and "Nguyễn Vân Dung" are totally DIFFERENT people. Moreover, this guy Kauffner already changed the name of a lot of articles about historical figures in Vietnamese history (some of which are, to be clear here, written by me) with the same argument he got from the discussion about a contemporary Vietnamese (
  WP:VIET, or at least, having some words with me. I cannot agree with that kind of manner. Grenouille vert (talk
  )