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
An Giang territory used to be a part of Long-Xuyen Province until the time of Republic of Vietnam! Offcially, this name is only about 50 years old. Therefore, the name of An Giang hardly has a Han Tu version. Same as before, I ask for source.--
AM(
talk)19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)reply
At least the etymology of the name (which in this case is undoubtedly Sino-Vietnamese) should be presented in some part of the article, as it should be for any WP article about any place in the world.
Badagnani (
talk)
07:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)reply
In my opinion, this high-doubtedly Han Tu merely is a Chinese translation from a Vietnamese name since the Vietnamese stopped using Han Tu in writing in 1945. And I strongly condemn any reckless copy'n'pasting edits like this addition.--
AM(
talk)12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)reply
This is not the issue. The issue is that at least the etymology of the name (which in this case is undoubtedly Sino-Vietnamese) should be presented in some part of the article, as it should be for any WP article about any place in the world.
Badagnani (
talk)
06:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)reply
OK so what is the "Peaceful River" stands right in the infobox, isn't a etymology? Why should we add Chinese character for "An Giang" since this name hardly has a Chinese version? I repeat again, the name of "An Giang" is only 50 years old (the province was established in 1957).
Let's get the things straight here, the problem is that you always try to insert Chinese character into Vietnamese-related articles regardless of the abandoning of Chinese character in Vietnam. Moreover, you simply copied Chinese character from Chinese Wikipedia and pasted it into the article!--
AM(
talk)10:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)reply
That is not the issue. The issue is that removing the origin of any place name from any article on a place at our encyclopedia (regardless of individual editors' tendencies toward nationalism) is wrong, and should not be engaged in, because our users must be foremost in our minds with each and every edit we make.
Badagnani (
talk)
17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)reply
An Giang is mentioned in Dai Nam Nhat thong chi, the Nguyen Dynasty's official gazetteer. The 1960 translation into Vietnamese did provide the Chinese characters for the name as 安江 (
p. 37).
DHN (
talk)
23:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Requested move
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.
Comment.
AP style ("geographic names", pp. 104-105) is to lower case,
Chicago (§8.55) is to upper case.
This ngram suggests that real world usage is split. There was an editor was felt quite strongly that these titles should be capitalized, so I wrote
WP:VIETPLACE to accommodate. Whatever the outcome of this RM, that style is fine with me.
Kauffner (
talk)
14:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Deep into reflection and research on this issue, I think I'm convinced by the nominator's arguments. Given that both types of usage are common enough to support usage here, I can support the change. ༆ (
talk)
22:54, 21 December 2012 (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.
More moves needed
Per the above consensus these should be moved too:
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– A look at
sources shows that "province" is not part of the proper names of these provinces, since it is often lowercase in sources in sentences; sources only cap it about half the time (and many of those capped instances are in title-case headings, titles, table entries, etc.). This proposal only looks specifically at the first and last alphabetically, but the result would presumably apply to the rest of the Vietnam province titles as well.
Dicklyon (
talk) 04:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the
guestbook •
(talk)20:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Nom self-support – I only just noticed above that these were all moved in 2013 from "province" to "Province" at the suggestion of
banned sockpuppet NVanMinh, a pretty sorry history. Anyway, let's take a fresh look. Sources were more in favor of caps back in the 60s for some reason, but in recent decades are pretty thoroughly mixed. Per
WP:NCCAPS and
MOS:CAPS, we default to lowercase when usage is mixed like that.
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Well, it's about consistent caps in sources. If you're saying some of those others should be considered for downcasing, show us the stats. Certainly for counties in the US, caps are standard (see
stats on that county). As for "An Giang, Vietnam", I'm not seeing that in sources; but "An Giang province" is common.
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Support with additional suggestion per nom and the usual practice when sources are mixed. The opening sentences are telling – e.g., "Yên Bái is a province", not "Yên Bái Provence is a province" – the "province" is a clarifying term, not part of the name. Contrast that with the article about
Delaware County, Pennsylvania – it starts by saying "Delaware County is a county". However, shouldn't the first one be simply at An Giang? That would be more
WP:CONCISE, and the "P/province" is not necessary for disambiguation. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
16:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. See also
this Quite clearly not meeting the threshold to be capped. While An Giang doesn't need "province" for disambiguation (but Yên Bái does), I am not opposed to retaining it for consistency.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
01:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)reply
We should strive for consistency among all the articles. Some of these could be titled with the Vietnamese name alone but as many cannot, they all should be styled the same and
An Giang should be a redirect rather than the article's location.
User:力 (powera,
π,
ν)
20:43, 21 November 2021 (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.
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
An Giang territory used to be a part of Long-Xuyen Province until the time of Republic of Vietnam! Offcially, this name is only about 50 years old. Therefore, the name of An Giang hardly has a Han Tu version. Same as before, I ask for source.--
AM(
talk)19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)reply
At least the etymology of the name (which in this case is undoubtedly Sino-Vietnamese) should be presented in some part of the article, as it should be for any WP article about any place in the world.
Badagnani (
talk)
07:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)reply
In my opinion, this high-doubtedly Han Tu merely is a Chinese translation from a Vietnamese name since the Vietnamese stopped using Han Tu in writing in 1945. And I strongly condemn any reckless copy'n'pasting edits like this addition.--
AM(
talk)12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)reply
This is not the issue. The issue is that at least the etymology of the name (which in this case is undoubtedly Sino-Vietnamese) should be presented in some part of the article, as it should be for any WP article about any place in the world.
Badagnani (
talk)
06:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)reply
OK so what is the "Peaceful River" stands right in the infobox, isn't a etymology? Why should we add Chinese character for "An Giang" since this name hardly has a Chinese version? I repeat again, the name of "An Giang" is only 50 years old (the province was established in 1957).
Let's get the things straight here, the problem is that you always try to insert Chinese character into Vietnamese-related articles regardless of the abandoning of Chinese character in Vietnam. Moreover, you simply copied Chinese character from Chinese Wikipedia and pasted it into the article!--
AM(
talk)10:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)reply
That is not the issue. The issue is that removing the origin of any place name from any article on a place at our encyclopedia (regardless of individual editors' tendencies toward nationalism) is wrong, and should not be engaged in, because our users must be foremost in our minds with each and every edit we make.
Badagnani (
talk)
17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)reply
An Giang is mentioned in Dai Nam Nhat thong chi, the Nguyen Dynasty's official gazetteer. The 1960 translation into Vietnamese did provide the Chinese characters for the name as 安江 (
p. 37).
DHN (
talk)
23:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Requested move
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.
Comment.
AP style ("geographic names", pp. 104-105) is to lower case,
Chicago (§8.55) is to upper case.
This ngram suggests that real world usage is split. There was an editor was felt quite strongly that these titles should be capitalized, so I wrote
WP:VIETPLACE to accommodate. Whatever the outcome of this RM, that style is fine with me.
Kauffner (
talk)
14:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Deep into reflection and research on this issue, I think I'm convinced by the nominator's arguments. Given that both types of usage are common enough to support usage here, I can support the change. ༆ (
talk)
22:54, 21 December 2012 (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.
More moves needed
Per the above consensus these should be moved too:
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– A look at
sources shows that "province" is not part of the proper names of these provinces, since it is often lowercase in sources in sentences; sources only cap it about half the time (and many of those capped instances are in title-case headings, titles, table entries, etc.). This proposal only looks specifically at the first and last alphabetically, but the result would presumably apply to the rest of the Vietnam province titles as well.
Dicklyon (
talk) 04:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the
guestbook •
(talk)20:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Nom self-support – I only just noticed above that these were all moved in 2013 from "province" to "Province" at the suggestion of
banned sockpuppet NVanMinh, a pretty sorry history. Anyway, let's take a fresh look. Sources were more in favor of caps back in the 60s for some reason, but in recent decades are pretty thoroughly mixed. Per
WP:NCCAPS and
MOS:CAPS, we default to lowercase when usage is mixed like that.
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Well, it's about consistent caps in sources. If you're saying some of those others should be considered for downcasing, show us the stats. Certainly for counties in the US, caps are standard (see
stats on that county). As for "An Giang, Vietnam", I'm not seeing that in sources; but "An Giang province" is common.
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Support with additional suggestion per nom and the usual practice when sources are mixed. The opening sentences are telling – e.g., "Yên Bái is a province", not "Yên Bái Provence is a province" – the "province" is a clarifying term, not part of the name. Contrast that with the article about
Delaware County, Pennsylvania – it starts by saying "Delaware County is a county". However, shouldn't the first one be simply at An Giang? That would be more
WP:CONCISE, and the "P/province" is not necessary for disambiguation. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
16:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. See also
this Quite clearly not meeting the threshold to be capped. While An Giang doesn't need "province" for disambiguation (but Yên Bái does), I am not opposed to retaining it for consistency.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
01:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)reply
We should strive for consistency among all the articles. Some of these could be titled with the Vietnamese name alone but as many cannot, they all should be styled the same and
An Giang should be a redirect rather than the article's location.
User:力 (powera,
π,
ν)
20:43, 21 November 2021 (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.