Talk:Bún riêu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Bun rieu)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

Requested move[edit]

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: move all except Bun cha and Kho (cooking technique). This is about as best of a result as I could deduce from this discussion, because the nominator made the unwise decision of lumping all of these moves together. I was tempted to just reject them all for that reason. -- tariqabjotu 06:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


– Per WP:IRS "sources reliable for the statement being made" "best possible sources", but let's be clear: Only a minority of British and American cookbooks have the full fonts you'd expect to see at your Vietnamese takeaway's bilingual menu. Therefore there's no need to go counting sources to see if these words appears more often in low-MOS or high-MOS books, most cookbooks don't have the fonts. But these are 100%-Vietnamese Category:Vietnamese words and phrases and there's no more an "English name" for bún riêu than there is for crème brûlée, smažený sýr, svíčková, kūčiukai, gołąbki, huevos motuleños, cağ kebabı. Also per WP:AT "Consistency" with Category:Vietnamese cuisine. Tacked on 3x Category:Vietnamese games to spare a separate RM. Bon Appétit! Relisted. Favonian (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Oppose Bun cha and pho are the most notable items in this category. They both at non-diacritic titles, confirmed by RMs. IIO has created a bunch of stub articles in this category. Now he tells us we must move the others for "consistency." In most of these cases, there is not a single English-language RS to support the proposed form. I suggest that the following titles would be more accord with the use English principle:
A couple of comments are necessitated by above:
1. The RM was placed without making references to Kauffner's undiscussed moves and redirect locks since (a) anyone taking part in a Vietnam RM discussion will be sick of hearing them (b) the second half of list are not undiscussed moves in most cases, but some of the minority of articles created at basic ASCII titles. However Kauffner having opened the subject, yes it is true that due to WP:BRD not functioning well when a move causes an auto-lock, or where the mover has deliberately redirect locked for most restores RM is needed, and most RMs to restore undiscussed moves - including several in the food area - have ended with the articles being restored. (Talk:Bun cha is an exception, and would have been taken to move review if that had existed at the time).
2. The above list demonstrates exactly what the nomination says. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Yes, I have added a few articles to Category:Vietnamese cuisine, but the majority of articles are at Vietnamese titles because either that's how they were, or earlier RMs reverted undiscussed moves.
  • Support, except for bun cha and pho which have already been the subject of RMs and so should be dealt with separately. As for the others, Kauffner's suggestions are like saying that Nasi goreng should be renamed 'Indonesian fried rice' - a proposal he would probably make if the Indonesian name contained any detested diacritics. Let's have their proper Vietnamese names, with full diacritics. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point - I have now notified editors who took part at Talk:Bun cha. Pho is not part of this, given the article is currently already in controversy regarding the nôm Phở character, and also given that consistency is complicated by related Pho 75 D.C. and Pho Ta (Phở Ta) Saigon restaurant articles that require further thought. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support all except Kho (cooking technique)Bò kho per nom. (Kho (cooking technique) needs rewriting/refocusing before being renamed Bò kho.) These terms are not English and have not been nativised and, thus, typically retain diacritics at Wikipedia as the nominator's examples show. While other sources have technical limitations or style manuals that proscribe certain diacritics, Wikipedia does not. —  AjaxSmack  02:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this move has been thought through and should be relisted broken up. Particularly given you are dealing with different and unrelated subject matters. For instance, the food items seem to have strong non-diacritic usage while the games may be better suited with diacritics. I disagree with the argument that source material is not required in order to draw conclusions. In my efforts, I conducted a Google book search and actually opened as many source as I could to counter Google’s failure to include diacritics in base results. Here are my conclusions on three examples:
  • Banh canh I’m not entirely convinced that the name with diacritics is most common. I clicked trough the first two pages of my Google book search "Banh canh", noodle[1] and the result weren’t convincing. Travel books and cookbooks are rather inconsistent and the result left me unconvinced.
  • Bun rieu has even fewer diacritic hits than my Banh canhs search. I counted 3 of the first 20 hits for my Google book search "Bun rieu", soup .[2]
User:Labattblueboy, hi. You appear to have searched in sources including those which are basic ASCII. Why should this search methodology be followed for Vietnamese food but not for smažený sýr, svíčková, kūčiukai, gołąbki, and cağ kebabı? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We are here to talk of the merits of this individual case not the validity of others. My search was non-diacritic because I otherwise received more non-english hits and less hits in general. For instance, with Bún riêu in Google books in english only I get 35 hits of which 20% are still Vietnamese.[4] I feel confident that if I pulled up my previous search for that I would find at least that many that did not employ diacritics.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Supplement to my previous comment. Recognizing that this is not a discussion of other articles I felt it necessary to debunk the myth that the Czech names cited are in the same boat at our Vietnamese ones being discussed currently. I did a search of smažený sýr and the diacritic name is clearly, and without a doubt, it's common name. I actually had trouble finding quality sources that didn't employ them (Expatriate Games: My Season of Misadventures in Czech Semi-Pro and, Let's Go Berlin, Prague & Budapest: The Student Travel Guide and Adventures Abroad: The Student's Guide to Studying Overseas were the only ones I found in the first two pages of results) even after I removed the diacritics from the search.[5] The Vietnamese article titles aren't even close in terms of search results, at least the ones for food.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Labattblueboy, with respect the work of hundreds of en.wp editors isn't just "other crap" - those articles are all at full Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Turkish spellings because that is the consensus of en.wp's editors to have them there and it is totally uncontroversial to have smažený sýr, svíčková, kūčiukai, gołąbki, and cağ kebabı. We also had an RfC with majority support for Vietnamese names for Vietnamese places people and things.

WP:USEENGLISH It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.).

As regards printed sources, yes less English printed sources use unicode than ASCII for these terms, as per RM nom, but none of them are English words these are all Vietnamese terms Category:Vietnamese words and phrases. What's the benefit to the reader interested in Vietnamese food of presenting them in ASCII when enabled English sources (yes mainly takeaway menus, but also some cookbooks) use them? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You quote the section of WP:USEENGLISH that pertains to there being no established usage in English language sources, which is untrue in this case. Once again, speaking just for the food articles, my search results clearly shows usage by English language sources; a lot in fact. "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." For cases of evenly divided results:"When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version." Since no other guidelines apply (it is unfortunate that there is no consensus on this topic from WP:VIETNAM) you need to show that the diacritic version is the most common in English sources. I don't think you can do that for the food items, hence my continued opposition. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
In my view there is no established usage in English cookbooks because some Amazon cookbooks have unicode. But the example given is "when Torino ousts Turin", i.e. it's primarily about endonyms and exonyms. Wheras an ASCII version of a Vietnamese term like Gỏi cuốn isn't an exonym, it's just a Vietnamese word written in ASCII font, or two words; gỏi and cuốn. These terms are Vietnamese terms barely making a dozen hits in English books, not Italian cities with an English name like Turin with maximum possible hits in Google Books. Again, what's the benefit to readers interested in Vietnamese food of presenting these Vietnamese terms in ASCII when some Amazon.com cookbooks use unicode? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Gỏi cuốn/Goi cuon is rather commonly known in English as Vietnamese spring rolls. Vietnamese spring rolls get lots of English hits, even when run in tandem with the Vietnamese word. I show 220 hits for a Google book search for Vietnamese "Spring Rolls", "Goi cuon"[6] "Vietnamese Spring Rolls" produces just shy of 2700 hits.[7]. Thus I would argue Goi cuon should be moved to Vietnamese spring roll.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the participation here is much less than the provinces RM, I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to notify all who contributed to the recent provinces RM. That aside, noted this today. Speaks for itself I think. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
SCRATCH THAT - wait and see on the second installment of provinces RM at Talk:Vinh Long just added. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support When the Vietnamese names are used they should be written with the appropriate diacritics. This provides greater accuracy, additional information and detail for our readers. I don't really see any disadvantage? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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.