Talk:Cẩm Phả

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 redirect was nominated for speedy deletion, after which the page will be moved to Cẩm Phả. Diacritics are widely used in Vietnamese articles, and there is no reason they should not be used here. (In fact, not using them can lead to confusion, since different names can be spelled in the same way) (non-admin closure).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Cam Pha District → Cam Pha – It is now a provincial city, not a district of Vietnam, so It should be named Cam Pha. Cheers! (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Support. When I reviewed the geography, I put the thành phố at plain titles on the theory that a thành phố corresponds to a city. The form "Foo District" has always been for the huyện and quân only. The Cam Pha in Hoi An is probably more notable than this one, but let's keep the titling consistent. Here is the city's site with thành phố Cẩm Phả on the top. Kauffner (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
• Problem. I'm afraid I have to note that the present title is the result of an undiscussed move on 11 October 2011‎ - Cẩm Phả District to Cam Pha District which was counter the result of the only, as far as I know, RM which has been held on Vietnamese place names at Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 which was no consensus for such moves. If the rationale for this move is correct then the move should proceed from last stable version of this article to Cẩm Phả in accordance with the 14 towns at the Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1.

Incidentally, I note Kauffner that Cẩm Phả 17:03, 20 July 2012‎ (8 minutes after above post) had a redirect edit preempting any move there, which seeing as there is a RM is in this case reasonable, but raises the question of whether you were aware that editing redirects prevents an undiscussed move being reverted when you edited Cẩm Phả District redirect 05:38, 11 October 2011‎ after undiscussed move contrary to the Cần Thơ 14 towns RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

To cap it all, I see the town's (new) official English website spells itself Cẩm Phả - reflecting the upgrading in Vietnamese local sources we've seen in the past year with newspapers such as English Vietweek and websites like English Baomoi/VGP. It seems that these 1000+ undiscussed moves of Vietnam articles to "English names" have been happening exactly at the same time local vn sources have been improving their html and printing presses. I have added the town's English website as a source. Why didn't anyone else do this, hmm? In ictu oculi (talk)

I just mention that it has [district] or not, I dont care [Cẩm Phả] or [Cam Pha]. However, it is a city not a rural district, so we dont need to add the suffix [district]. Pleas see all cities are listed here.--Cheers! (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

@Kauffner (talk). Sorry [Kauffner], I dont know what does it mean relate to Cam Pha in the phrase ...The Cam Pha in Hoi An is probably more notable than this one...?--Cheers! (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Okay, then support restore to Cẩm Phả All good. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
• RMs are not common law precedents. We should be following the guidelines. WP:DIACRITICS says, "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language." That suggests the title should be "Cam Pha", per Viet Nam News, VietnamNet, and Rough Guide to Vietnam. Cf. My Tho or Da Nang. Kauffner (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Viet Nam News uses diacritics in their print edition, so Kauffner's assertion above is not entirely true. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Support with restoration of diacritics to Cẩm Phả. Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
• support to Cẩm Phả per nom and Dicklyon.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
• Support to Cẩm Phả per Dicklyon. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 1 August 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.