Talk:Nguyễn Văn Thiệu

: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.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. There was not consensus for the move. Consensus among the opposers was that the Vietnamese spelling (with diacritics) is appropriate and follows the English Wikipedia norms for the title. It was also noted that the existing redirects currently handle this situation well. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 17:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

----

• :Nguyễn Văn Thiệu → {{no redirect|Nguyen Van Thieu}}
• :Lê Duẩn → {{no redirect|Le Duan}}
• :Lê Đức Thọ → {{no redirect|Le Duc Tho}}
• :Nguyễn Cao Kỳ → {{no redirect|Nguyen Cao Ky}}
• :Trường Chinh → {{no redirect|Truong Chinh}}

– Move of Vietnamese biographies to their more popular anglicised titles as per WP:UCN and WP:UE: {{tq|The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage}}. See the following Google Ngrams for evidence:

• Nguyen Van Thieu: [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_end=2019&year_start=1800&smoothing=3&content=Nguy%E1%BB%85n+V%C4%83n+Thi%E1%BB%87u%2C+Nguyen+Van+Thieu&corpus=26&direct_url=t1%3B%2CNguy%E1%BB%85n%20V%C4%83n%20Thi%E1%BB%87u%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CNguyen%20Van%20Thieu%3B%2Cc0 1]
• Le Duan: [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_end=2019&year_start=1800&smoothing=3&content=L%C3%AA+Du%E1%BA%A9n%2CLe+Duan&corpus=26&direct_url=t1%3B%2CL%C3%AA%20Du%E1%BA%A9n%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLe%20Duan%3B%2Cc0 2]
• Le Duc Tho: [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_end=2019&year_start=1800&smoothing=3&content=L%C3%AA+%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c+Th%E1%BB%8D%2C+Le+Duc+Tho&corpus=26&direct_url=t1%3B%2CL%C3%AA%20%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c%20Th%E1%BB%8D%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLe%20Duc%20Tho%3B%2Cc0 3]
• Nguyen Cao Ky: [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_end=2019&year_start=1800&smoothing=3&content=Nguy%E1%BB%85n+Cao+K%E1%BB%B3%2C+Nguyen+Cao+Ky&corpus=26&direct_url=t1%3B%2CNguy%E1%BB%85n%20Cao%20K%E1%BB%B3%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CNguyen%20Cao%20Ky%3B%2Cc0 4]
• Truong Chinh: [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Tr%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng+Chinh%2C+Truong+Chinh&corpus=26&year_end=2019&year_start=1800&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CTr%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng%20Chinh%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CTruong%20Chinh%3B%2Cc0 5]
  ItsPugle (please use {{tlx|ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 12:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:USEENGLISH. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Rreagan007 as well as per WP:COMMONNAME. English-language orthography does not use diacritics and this name appeared in newspapers and magazines around the English-speaking world on a nearly-daily basis. Exceptions should be made for names that have well-established and recognizable English-language forms that continue in common use as of this writing. There have been a number of previous discussions regarding this matter — see Talk:Nguyễn Văn Thiệu#RfC on Vietnamese diacritics (21:31, 22 July 2012, above). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose no need for this change when redirects adequately address any confusion. WP:UCN is irrelevant and all the names are recognizable with diacritics. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

::I mean, WP:UE is pretty clear in exactly when diacritics/non-English characters should be used: when the majority of sources use them, which isn't the case here as already demonstrated. As I've mentioned in your other comment against this policy at Vo Nguyen Giap, you can always go forward and try and form an RfC to change it, but existing exceptions like common sense and ignore all rules don't really apply. In fact, I'd like to think that common sense is to use the most common name... ItsPugle (please use {{tlx|ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 12:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Why stop here? There are over 1 million articles with full fonts on en.wp. These correctly spelled articles have been built up over 20 years. {{ping|Rreagan007}} are you volunteering to go through every article in the corpus and remove diacritics, not just in titles but in texts? If not what are you supporting here? WP:USEENGLISH evidently doesn't say "strip fonts", but leaving that aside. Are you volunteering to clean the accents and diacritics from the entire project? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• I think this is a Reductio ad absurdum argument. But yes, I think that all* articles on the English Wikipedia should be at their most common English name, which includes spelling and diacritics. I highly doubt there are over one million articles not currently at their most common English name, but if there are, then yes they should all be moved to their most common English name (*with certain exceptions, of course) in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Peacemaker67|Necrothesp|SnowFire}} pinging possibly interested editors from the recent move discussion at Talk:Viet Minh, excluding those who have already replied here. ItsPugle (please use {{tlx|ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 12:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

:And {{u|Roman Spinner}} from Vo Nguyen Giap - all other editors there have also been involved here :) ItsPugle (please use {{tlx|ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

::My "support" vote is already posted above (17:31, 13 August). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

:::I'm so dumb, sorry! ItsPugle (please use {{tlx|ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 10:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As mentioned in the other discussion, most older sources had typographical limitations. See for example [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?corpus=26&year_end=2019&content=Luis+Garc%C3%ADa%2CLuis+Garcia&smoothing=3&year_start=1800&direct_url=t1%3B%2CLuis%20Garc%C3%ADa%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLuis%20Garcia%3B%2Cc0 this ngram for a generic name with diacritics] which clearly shows how pretty much everything before 2010 was still largely constrained by the inability to write such marks. Now, as your ngrams show, this is no longer the case, and publications that can include diacritics, do include them, and Wikipedia should follow suit. Neodop (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

::Linking to another cherry picked source hardly counts as evidence - that source isn't even Vietnamese and has only one diacritic in the non-anglicise term. And all the Google Ngrams I've provided show, as per actual policy, that the significant majority of sources use the anglicised version. Even in recent years when such (alleged) technical limitations wouldn't a problem, Google Ngrams still shows that the anglicised versions are very substantially more prominent than the "native" ones. ItsPugle (please use {{tlx|ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 01:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

:::A lot of bytes above, responding to those arguing for following low-MOS English sources:

:::1. There is nothing absurd about consistency, that is why we have MOS.

:::2. The current number of articles in the English Wikipedia is 6,136,347. Of these around 10-20% touch on subjects in Latin America, Europe, so will have accents and other diacritics in article texts and where required in titles. Anyone can test this with Special:Random/Namespace.

:::3. "in accordance with Wikipedia reality" is article reality : since all articles have full fonts in title and name space and are therefore every article which could have diacritics does have so, then the article corpus en toto cannot be "contrary with Wikipedia policy", simply policy is being misread (as here).

:::4. The main point I am making here is that to be on a RM lobbying for a change in article corpus reality, status quo is WP:DISRUPTIVE and why several of the anti-diacritic editors 10 years ago ended up with Topic-bans, blocks and even C-bans.

:::5. It is however encouraging that no one yet has said "yes but these are Asia articles, East European bios are Europe articles." In ictu oculi (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

:::::1. Yep, and the MOS in this situtation says to use the non-diacritic version (WP:UE)

:::::3. There's literally nothing saying that just because something can be technically done, it must be. In fact, saying so is a direct divergence from relevant policy

:::::2. and 4. The existing wiki-wide consensus supports using the non-diacritic version, so I think it's actually more disruptive for you to continue to base your attacks against this RM and me on a discussion that occurred ten years ago and for you to continue to protest that this therefore changes up to a million articles - literally just lunacy

:::::Also, please stop bringing up the fact that other editors got blocked or c-banned ten years ago. I've said this over and over: if you think I'm being a serious issue (other than just disagreeing with you), then report me to the ANI - otherwise it's just obvious you're trying to taint my character ItsPugle (please use {{tlx|ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 00:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Modified_letters and also Mztourist and In ictu oculi. Diacritics are allowed and 'common name' refers to using stage names and shortened names where these are more common. Using diacritics or not doesn't change the "name" Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

::Doesn't WP:NCUE (specifically, WP:DIACRITICS) support using the non-diacritic name since they're used in the significant majority of reliable, English-language sources? ItsPugle (please use {{tlx|ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 00:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose WP has for a long time embraced the diacritics set contained in any latin script in order to respect native pronunciations. It would be retrograde to move these back to non-diacritics style. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

::WP uses the diactrictics (or lack thereof) from the majority of reliable, English-language sources, so... ItsPugle (please use {{tlx|ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 00:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as with my comments on the Giáp article. Vietnamese diacritics exist for a reason. It's insulting not to spell peoples' names correctly. Blythwood (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

::I don't really think predicting how someone (many of whom are dead) is going to feel about their Wikipedia page using anglicised characters is a great reason here. Especially when it goes against policy. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 04:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I think existing redirects handle the situation adequately. I don't see that moves like this have any substantive impact. --Spasemunki (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

----

: 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.