Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)

"In discussion" tags need to stay

Until there is some willingness to let page reflect RfC majority. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Then please discuss, for example discuss this edit. Why is it important to have this material at the top rather than further down? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Surely one "In discussion" tag is more than enough. What is the benefit of four? The naming conventions for other countries don't even mention exonym or endonyms. Why should that go on top? Kauffner (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

1. There aren't 4x, there are 3x. The tag says "This section is the subject of a current discussion on the talk page." and 3x different discussions of different sections are ongoing.

2. I see you've inserted again the banner This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, but this page doesn't document "an English Wikipedia naming convention", it isn't "a generally accepted standard" and looking at the Talk page history makes it questionable whether there has ever been any support other than from yourself as author "that editors should attempt to follow" what you have written. Please remove this banner and discuss and gain consensus first. Then if all editors agree we may want to add it.

3. exonym or endonyms are just linguistic technical terms for "Anglicized vs. Vietnamese forms." Why should that go in the section 1. Because that is the first section in the current structure. which starts with 1 Anglicized vs. Vietnamese forms.

4. Now, good that we are talking, can you state why you propose "Encyclopædia Britannica or National Geographic that give diacritics for other languages, generally drop Vietnamese diacritics" should be placed in the lede ahead of all other sections? Is there a rationale for why this sentence should even be in the guideline, let alone placed as lede? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I reverted to the pre-dispute version of article, per WP:BRD. To have four "current discussion" banners in such a brief document is completely unnecessary. I am fine with no banners. No one other than you has expressed support for any of the changes you made, despite the fact the you invited several editor here in the hope that they would. Many editors participated in the RfC, but no one else has suggested that the guideline banner be removed. Kauffner (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner

If we revert to "pre-dispute version" then the banner before you changed it was:

Check the above YigMgo also objected to your 1-man editing of this "guideline" contrary to the RfC conclusion.

I think it would be best if you moved this draft to your sandbox if you are unwilling to discuss.

In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "guideline" tag again as contrary to (1) RfC majority, (2) that it has never been approved as a guideline. I propose to now re-add proposed. tag. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would a brief document need four "in discussion" tags? I've never seen another document with more than one. Dozens editors participated in the RFC. No one else suggested that the document needed such tags, let alone four of them. Kauffner (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, it certainly needs the proposed tag. It also needs at least one discussion tag. This is a minor issue. The main thing is that the page shouldn't misrepresent itself as being agreed "Naming conventions" when it is not agreed and when it doesn't reflect RfC result. Let's look at how other non-agreed proposals are headed. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Spanish) doesn't even have on. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

See examples of various proposed and inactive pages on Wikipedia:Proposed naming conventions and guidelines. You cannot unilaterally appoint a page you have written as a Wikipedia agreed guideline. Even if a draft was in agreement with RfC majority rather than against RfC majority, which this proposal isn't, one person cannot do this. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Or instead of using the {proposed} tag, the {historical} tag such as used on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

TAGS REMOVED:(cur | prev) 09:48, 17 February 2013‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,093 bytes) (-475)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 538679714 by Kauffner: you don't repeatly make the changes and then discuss. That's not what BRD says. (TW)) (undo)

Kauffner, WP:BRD is not a license to insist on misleading presentation of a MOS proposal, and evidently does not apply to a single author presenting his personal work as a consensus wp guideline and repeatedly removing any "proposed" "discussion" "reference" "essay" tags. Wikipedia works on consensus of editors, no User can present a personal set of guidelines as a guideline for en.wp to follow when its first content is contrary to the majority of a RfC the User themselves initiated. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, do you actually think that a document is improved for the reader when numerous tags are added? Because, frankly, I am finding it hard to assume good faith here. You know perfectly well that the RFC wasn't about tags. Kauffner (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There are 2 ways I believe a draft/proposed guideline is improved by accurate tagging such as {proposal} (1) it invites users who see the draft to input, (2) it avoids misleading users into thinking the proposal is a guideline. The number of tags is a secondary issue. Ideally 1 tag would be sufficient where there was no discussion of individual sections going on. At this point the question would be whether to restore the 1 tag

Or if there's no way forward with discussion to use the 1 tag

This solves the multiple tags issue. Which one would you prefer? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really follow your theory regarding what is a guideline and what isn't. Was it guideline at the time of the RFC? I don't recall anyone claiming it wasn't a guideline. Kauffner (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any diff link to any discussion by anyone recognising your proposal as a guideline? In any case the opposition of your proposal/draft to the majority of the RfC would render such a diff moot, but it would still be interesting to see. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In view of repeated removal of the {proposed} tag, and in view of removal of recent edits, adding a {historical} tag on the basis that (1) this page has never been approved, (2) we've had an RfC which contradicts the 1-person essay status this page had before, we've also got comment from four editors on this Talk page - myself, Yig Mgo, Agathoclea and Dr Blofeld disagreeing with page content. An essay is fine for a sandbox, but in a guideline location an proposed guideline/essay must be appropriately tagged. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) for a further example from Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Where ever I edit, I can count on IIO coming by to try to vandalize it. This thing had guideline status for well over a year. Despite the huge amount of discussion it has generation, and no one else ever questioned this status. I wrote it to apply the principles in well-established guidelines such as WP:DIACRITICS, WP:EN, and WP:COMMONNAME to Vietnamese. At the time I rewrote this document, these guidelines had been freshly confirmed by a large RFC. The document is not some royal edict dictating policy, and it doesn't say anywhere that you must write with or without diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This comment "Where ever I edit, I can count on IIO coming by to try to vandalize it" contains 2x personal attacks. On the first point the edits you make within WP:VN project space are of a small number and are frequently disruptive - within this week you have a 3rd time tried to strip the Vietnamese spelling from one of the dynasties, and were reverted, again, by another editor. If you cease making disruptive edits and contribute to the project less of them will be reverted. If you can show a [diff] of a non-disruptive edit that might be different. As far as the second personal attack "vandalize" - see WP:VANDALISM, this proposal already had a {proposal} tag on it until you removed it, if the {proposal} tag is "vandalism" then the original placer of the {proposal} tag is the "vandal" - but in fact it is not. As above if you look at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals you will they all have either {proposal} or {historical}. This is no different. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Titles should be name of the subject as it given in real world English, not in Vietnamese. You fill up one talk page after another with personal kinds attacks of this kind. I don't have to prove anything to you. I don't have any interest in supplying information that would make it easier for you to harass me. You weren't even involved in the Vietnam project when I wrote this stuff. I have been hounded and wikistalked like this for month on end, from one talk page to another. It is freakish and obsessive. You've forum shopped your complaints against me to a dozen admins by now. Kauffner (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner

You are not the centre of the universe. You have not been hounded and wikistalked. You were brought to ANI twice by two other editors for making moves counter RM decisions - I did not even comment on the first time. If you stop removing Vietnamese spelling from titles, text and templates, and start making positive content contributions to the project then there won't be anything anyone can object to.

As regards this naming convention proposal, as with Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals all proposals which have never been adopted, or do not have majority support, they all have either {proposal}, as this did before, or {historical}, it's normal. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So what guideline was ever "adopted"? Is there even a process for this? BRD covers only recent edits. It is not a license to go back to a version from years ago. I move titles from Vietnamese to English, and you come along a year later and start objecting. Those readers who want to learn Vietnamese, which I doubt is a large percentage, can always find this information in the opening. If you can object to titles on English Wikipedia being in English, you can object to anything. Kauffner (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Template for RS search

Does anyone think it would be we should mention {{Google RS}} in the page? It lets you search various news sites in one shot. Kauffner (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Google RSVP goes further than that: it searches a majority of reliable English-language Vietnamese sites as well as the major encyclopedias and major new sources of {{Google RS}}. Surely that should be useful? LittleBen (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Changes

Where there any changes to the WP:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) you wanted to propose beyond adding tags? Perhaps we could make a list and put them up for an RFC, or resolve them some other way. Kauffner (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As above we have just had an RfC, which you yourself initiated and phrased, on use of full Vietnamese spelling in article titles for which the majority view was 23:16 (or 23:10 excluding canvassed !votes). What I propose is removing the anti-Vietnamese spelling content of your proposed guideline to reflect the majority of the recent RfC which you initiated. If you remain opposed to reflecting the majority view of the RfC in your proposed guideline, then it remains an unaccepted proposal and should retain either the {proposal} tag it had earlier, or a {historical} tag. Either way as with the rest of Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals it should have either one tag or the other.

If you do want to reopen the RfC in specific relation to the proposed guideline I have no objection to finding a neutral editor to notify all participants of the RfC that it has been reopened (minus the 6 who were canvassed, obviously). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You just want talk about you were robbed in the RFC? I'm sure if we had another one, you'd disrupt again with dozens of kilobytes worth of personal accusations, loud proclamations of why you would never accept the result, enormous photo galleries, and bogus vote counts. Kauffner (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It was 23:10 excluding canvassed !votes. Even counting in the 6 extra votes you invited, no one was "robbed". As I said, if you do want to reopen the RfC in specific relation to the proposed guideline I have no objection to finding a neutral editor to notify all participants of the RfC that it has been reopened (minus the 6 who were canvassed, obviously). In the meantime, your proposal remains an unaccepted proposal and should retain either the {proposal} tag it had earlier, or a {historical} tag as with the rest of Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals. Please don't remove the tag again. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No one put you in charge of counting votes. Several editors you're counting as pro-diacritics were notified too, but you have chosen not to subtract their votes. Kauffner (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner. It is true that after Obiwan saw you selectively inviting people who had opposed full Vietnamese spelling on previous RMs, he did go and invite some of the people you missed. I grant you that. Okay. But even with including those you invited it is still 23:16. It certainly isn't 16:23.

As I said if you do want to reopen the RfC in specific relation to your proposed guideline I have no objection to finding a neutral editor to notify participants of the RfC that the RfC has been reopened.

Otherwise you are just going to have to learn to live with the views of other editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not like there has been a trend toward greater use of Vietnamese diacritics in recent years. The other encyclopedias don't use them. See Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, or Encyclopedia of Modern Asia. The English-language press in Vietnam has been dropping them in the last few years. You have cited VGP News, one of government news sites. But they stopped using diacritics last year sometime. More relevant to us is Voice of Vietnam, since it is directed specifically at an international audience. It has never used diacritics. Vietweek is the English-language periodical you're most likely to find on newsstands. They use diacritics only for food articles, and they don't run many food articles. For a site in Vietnam, it's easier to leave diacritics in than to take them out. I should know. I've spend a lot of time taking them out. Kauffner (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is all discussed in the archive. I see you have removed the {proposal} banner again. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So you know about all that, but your focus is the tags? If you want to verify it, you can search for some Vietnamese subject at Baomoi, or with the template Google reliable sources on Vietnam for "Nguyen Phu Trong" Kauffner (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes the focus is the tag. The question is has this ever been formally proposed? Looking at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals it appears that the ones that have been formally adopted have been formally proposed. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tag removal yet again

• I'm sorry to see that User Kauffner's edits on return from block include draft/historical tag gone again. As previous myself, Yig Mgo, User:Agathoclea and Dr Blofeld have all made comment on this. Different comment but no support that this (as it stands) essay, should be representing itself as an adopted convention.
• Nor should it be in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions when other drafts are in drafts category. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC

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:

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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)