Talk:Phước Long, Bình Phước

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move: → Phuoc Long[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

– This proposal would make Phuoc Long in Binh Phuoc Province, the site of a well-known Vietnam War battle, primary topic, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The other localities named “Phuoc Long” are not notable. Karnow’s [http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-History-Stanley-Karnow/dp/0140265473 Vietnam: A History] (pp. 437, 676, 678) and Vien’s [http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-History-Nguyen-Khac-Vien/dp/B004SVIHNE Vietnam: A long history] mention this Phuoc Long and only this Phuoc Long. None of these localities are tourist destinations. Lonely Planet and Frommer’s, the top selling guidebooks for Vietnam, don’t mention any of them. The town, the township, the district, the village, and the ward can all be considered towns, so the "town" disambiguator doesn't really disambiguate. Kauffner (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • oppose - you're basically saying the disambiguation page is redundant. Monni (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To put the topic readers are most likely to be interested in at the base name is a very common setup, provided for by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See Paris (disambiguation) or Saigon (disambiguation). Kauffner (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think this is the best way to handle this... We don't want same page(s) to be moved over and over to different titles. Monni (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and preferably also restore undiscussed move back to Phước Long District, Bình Phước - firstly there's a backlogged related move still open at Talk:Phước Long (town), secondly this is yet another of 800 undiscuseed VN geo moves where a single user has stripped Vietnamese spelling counter the geo RMs at Talk:Cà Mau, thirdly as Monni says - are there that many battles that displace the main page? Even "Waterloo" which is often used without "Battle of" ("met his Waterloo" etc.) is not at Waterloo. - not exactly the same case obviously, but illustrates why disambiguation page is needed. Particularly in this forest of different Phước Long's. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal would make the town where the battle occurred primary topic. If you look at the list of district-level subdivisions in Vietnam, towns (thị xã) typically get a title without disambiguation. Phuoc Long was upgraded from a district to a town in 2009. Since it may be the best-known thị xã in Vietnam, there is additional reason to follow the convention here. Waterloo?? As far as I know, ABBA has not released a song about Phuoc Long. Kauffner (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[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: moved to original titles. I see no consensus to redirect "Phuoc Long/Phước Long" to here. "Phuoc Long Town" is a district-level town, and "Phuoc Long District" is a district, so "D/district" is a poor disambiguator as it applies to both entities. Note that Phuoc Long District, Binh Phuoc and Phước Long District, Bình Phước both redirect to "Phuoc Long Town". Similarly, "Phuoc Long Town" and "Phuoc Long (township)" are both towns, so "T/town(ship)" is also a poor disambiguator.
As Phuoc Long in Binh Phuoc is the only place and entity of that name in Binh Phuoc, it can be disambiguated as "Phuoc Long, Binh Phuoc".
As there is a district, town and a village in Bac Lieu called Phuoc Long, then these entities need to be disambiguated by level, i.e. "D/district", "(township)", "(village)" etc. as well as by province.
Hence, Phuoc Long Town will be returned to the original article title chosen by the article's first editor, which is "Phuoc Long, Binh Phuoc", and Phuoc Long District will be returned to "Phuoc Long District, Bac Lieu". DrKiernan (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Restore diacritics to match Phước Long (town) and its backlogged rename to Phước Long (township). Leaving possible move of Phuoc Long to Phuoc Long (disambiguation) or Phước Long (disambiguation) (and making Phuoc Long and Phước Long redirect to this article) to separate request. Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Monni (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O i c what's going on. The nom is translating Vietnamese Wiki word-for-word. How many readers are going to know that a "(town)" disambiguator indicates a district-level urban area? The proposed title is Viet-lish. Kauffner (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not translating anything... It's Wikipedia style to put disambiguation inside parentheses, xxxx District is an exception to that guideline, just like "xxxx Prefecture" in for example Japanese articles. I picked the first destination page title, because that already exists as misleading redirect after previous WP:RM.
I'm not going to stick my head in beehive with the diacritics issue, I only nominated because I want to see which version has wider/-st support. I'm not expecting this nomination to have 100­­% support, or even 50% support. If we don't get consensus, someone can, and should, make a new proposal. Monni (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I fixed the redirect. Problem solved? By the logic of this nomination, Waterloo, Belgium could be moved to Waterlô (municipality). Kauffner (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No... That's a completely different case, there is no article titled Waterlô. Monni (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about Tam Duong District, Lai Chau, Tan Phu District, Dong Nai, Tan Chau District, Tay Ninh, Châu Thành District, Tây Ninh or Fort Worth, Texas? It's not just Waterloo. This is the standard way disambiguate geography. Kauffner (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's always exceptions... I like the comma-separated style, but that breaks when there is two distinct places in same province that have the same name. We could of course disambiguate them by for example using both district and province, but shortest unambiguous article title is my preferred choice. Like I said before, I don't want to add too many controversial renames in one request, as it is easier to discuss small set of renames than large set. I also don't like having different styles of disambiguation mixed in one disambiguation page, as it doesn't look very organized. Monni (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What your proposing is the exact opposite of Wiki's disambiguation policy. Readers are looking for articles, not DABs. So the priority should be to give articles on notable subjects titles that look professional and are consistent with way other articles on similar subjects are titled. Whenever possible, the title should be the actual name of the subject, as I proposed above. A parenthetical disambiguator looks ugly on top of an article and should be used only when "natural disambiguation is not possible," according to WP:PRECISION. Villages are given parenthetical disambiguators so that more notable subjects can be put in a style that looks professional. Kauffner (talk 14:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I did use common sense and last rule of WP:NCGN, which is the most relevant guideline. Monni (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment upon relisting. This town is given as "Phuoc Long" in the state media, i.e. the ASCII form is the official English-language name. Travel books don't use Vietnamese diacritics either, so adding them doesn't make things any easier for travelers. In short, the arguments commonly given to nativize a name do not apply here. Kauffner (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PRIMARY for Vietnamese state media... This isn't WikiTravel either... This is an encyclopedia. Only cities like Hanoi, Saigon etc. have well-established English names, so diacritics have been dropped (see how all the syllables are written without spaces in between). Monni (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What encyclopedia uses Vietnamese diacritics? Not Britannica. I gave a list of secondary sources above. There are thousands of them. If you could read my posts before responding, I would not have to repeat myself. Kauffner (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I only have one encyclopedia and that was published six years before Vietnam even existed (closest match it can tell about is Annam)... And that one doesn't strip diacritics from entry titles in other Latin-based languages. Monni (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just click on the word Britannica above and you can see the current edition: After an easy success at Phuoc Long, northeast of Saigon, in December 1974–January 1975, the Hanoi leaders believed that victory was near. The older encyclopedias give only Latin-1 (Western European) diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did click it... If they would only use Latin-1 (which was replaced by Latin-9/ISO-8859-15 around 1999 in Europe), it would be written as "Phuóc Long". I can write ư and ơ straight from my Swedish extended keyboard (Alt-Gr + "p" and "u" or "o"). The main point I see is that recently "people" making input methods for different keyboard layouts have decided that writing extended Latin characters straight from keyboard should be made easier. The question raises now if we want to have both diacritics and extended Latin characters, just former or latter, or both in the article title. In my opinion this is not an easy question. Monni (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment upon relisting. ...I am evidently not the only one absolutely fed up with this nonsense. We have one editor who basically went on a 1-man rampage making 1600x undiscussed moves like this one 15:28, 14 October 2011‎ Kauffner moved Phước Long District, Bình Phước to Phuoc Long District: Move to non-diacritic form to follow the style of Britannica, Vietnam News Agency, per WP:NCGN... knowing that it was highly controversial since the moves were contrary to the result of the User's own RM at Talk:Can Tho (unhappy opposition by Vietnamese editor etc. hidden into archive by IP-puppet) and here we are yet again having to listen to the same story to conduct what should be a simple revert of a counter-consensus move.
As for sources for "Phước Long" [http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Vietnam-War-Political-Military/dp/0195135253 Oxford University Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War (Amazon LOOK INSIDE)] and [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0813109663/ref=rdr_ext_sb_ti_sims_2#reader_0813109663 Tucker, Vietnam (LOOK INSIDE)] etc. spell the town correctly (as en.wp used to do). We can't do better than a $25 paperback?. Some passing uncontaminated admin/user restore to before undiscussed controversial move please. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by Yellowmonkey at the current title.[1] So Britannica, Viet Nam News, etc. all spell the name of this town "incorrectly"? What an attitude. You've forum-shop these complaints against me in so many places now, and they don't relate to this RM. Kauffner (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An undiscussed move of this article counter WP:VN geo RMs evidently does relate to this RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:20, 23 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phước_Long,_Bình_Phước&oldid=1204672834"