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
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: Moved. The articles were recently moved to the forms without diacritics en masse and without discussion. Consensus has recently favored using diacritics in Vietnamese names except for a few that are well-established in English usage in unaccented form. For background see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive 2. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
– This is a large administrative RM. All of the listed moves were made with the intent of removing diacritics from Vietnamese names without discussion. Any and all that follow requested moves knows very well that this is a controversial topic area, and should be returned to their original locations as this is a questionable use of WP:BRD The moves were made from account currently accused of sock puppetry. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This move is not being requested on a common name basis. Rather, the request is made because it's quite questionable that the undiscussed moves were made in good faith as they employed a method that prevents reverting by a regular user thus hindering the WP:BRD cycle. Thus this constituting a case of correcting behaviour consistent with Gaming the system.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As in the other, three parts. First and foremost, strongly censure the page move strategy by User:TenMuses in cases like this. Listen, we've all made mistakes and I've certainly made my share of edits that I'm not proud of--but doing this in mass and in such a deliberate fashion is something we really don't need at the encyclopedia. This is not good.
Thirdly, unfortunately (I say that because the strategy used by TenMuses was so abhorrent I'd not be surprised for the closer to move all of them simply to spite him), I really don't feel that any of the others are in Latin script--it's like porn, I don't know exactly how to define the line but I know it when I see it. The four proposed titles that I support the move for don't cross that line, but the others do. Solidly oppose all moves except Song Cong, Lai Chau, Han-Nom Research Institute, and Early Ly dynasty as per WP:UE; I hate to offend but those other proposed titles need transliteration into Latin script, cause those characters ain't in any Latin alphabet I know. Red Slash06:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As other listing I'm loathe to go through hoops on a RM which is counter the majority of the recent RfC and previous RMs and Talk:Cà Mau, and I hope an admin will still close this RM per WP:BRD, whatever the result of latest SPI. However, since User:Prolog has been cited, National Geographic doesn't, hardback academic history books increasing do, even if as for Lê Thuần Tông, as User:Prolog points out Google Book OCR won't pick up all fonts:
Cuong T. Nguyen Zen in Medieval Vietnam 1997 Page 434 "Lê Thuần Tông was son of Lê Long Đĩnh and grandson of Lê Đại Hành"
Support. Reverting undiscussed moves. If this continues, Vietnamese names being treated bias and suffered of being removed diacritics, European names would soon follow, such as here they don't use diacritics for Romanian names. And if certain someone says he/she finds it difficult to use name with diacritics, that is exactly why we have redirect function. There are still sources using diacritics for Vietnamese such as [1]. What about Takéo Province? Most sources from Google don't use diacritics. ༆ (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that perhaps many opposers or would-be opposers would also support moving some of the ridiculous European names, as well. I sure would. I got caught up into a truly contentious debate on random city names in Kosovo because I preferred the Serbian-language name (gasp!) for one city because it didn't have diacritics whereas the Albanian name did. So there's that. Red Slash09:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support strongly for procedural reasons noted in the nomination. Also support on the merits. We use diacritics on titles dealing with other countries; why single out Vietnam for dumbing down? — AjaxSmack03:45, 9 June 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.
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
