Jump to content

Talk:Ho Chi Minh City

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 0x44616E68 (talk | contribs) at 11:51, 9 July 2017 (→Recent changes to the page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeHo Chi Minh City was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 27, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed


WP:COMMONNAME

I live in Hanoi and literally no one ever calls it Chi Minh Ho City (Westernised for easier readability), it's always referred to as Saigon both locally and nationally, in fact most foreign travel agencies, news agencies and general literature refer to the city as Saigon, in fact if you'd ask a Viet person about "thanh pho ho chi minh" they would act in confusion, the name Saigon is the only known name to people both nationally and "international people" (nuoc ngoai / tays and other Asians), so I request a move as this name is completely unused, kind of like how Republic of China was moved to Taiwan, or how Burma is the name of the article despite most people calling it Myanmar in the news. The name literally makes no sense, here in Hanoi in every street corner we have "Saigon shops" and I can't remember anyone ever calling Saigon anything else, even in schools we learn to call it "Saigon" I must really contest this name as a violation of WP:COMMONNAME of the worst kind. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true to say that "literally no one ever calls it TPHCM". I really doubt any Vietnamese wouldn't know what "TPHCM" is; certainly in Saigon itself they do. On the other hand, it is correct to say that within Vietnam "Saigon" is by far the most common word colloquially and with businesses using the the city's name in their brands (and one can find plenty of secondary sources stating this); and I personally would much rather the article be titled "Saigon". That said, WP:COMMONNAME states that we use the name most common in English language scholarly (and newspapers etc.) literature, and I strongly suspect that this would turn out to be "Ho Chi Minh City" (certainly within Vietnam, both the Vietnamese and English media are notorious for, along with the government itself, being the only ones using "HCMC"). Someone with more time and inclination than me can investigate. Another thing to bear in mind is that "Saigon" and "HCMC" are not quite synonymous, really. "HCM City" is in reality a province: 75% of its area is rural, including the politically incorporated areas of Can Gio (a big freaking swamp, basically), Cu Chi (which has its own "district capital" or something), and so on. These wouldn't be included an informal reference to "Saigon" I shouldn't think (which would refer to the urban area itself). Another use of "Saigon" is also still to refer to a particular area of downtown (corresponding to the city when it was last officially designated as such). Like if someone is in Saigon/HCMC's District 10 and opines "let's go drinking in Saigon" he means a particular area of downtown (similar to Tokyo station area in Tokyo; City of London in London; and so on, I'd imagine). Otherwise, I've changed the WP:WEASEL-Y "some Vietnamese" statement in the lead. bridies (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the city is still called Saigon, but I always write it as HCMC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lão Ngoan Đồng (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ho Chi Minh City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the page

In recent months, this page has been changed in which the infobox settlement template has been replaced with wikidata by users112.198.102.128, Alice Zhang Mengping, 118.69.57.12, and 82.203.24.241 (see these edits for PH wikidata[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) and [6]. I strongly oppose to substituting the infobox settlement with wikidata templates as shown in these edits for a couple of reasons. I am okay with ordering the citations by distinguishing book and web soruces.

  1. By changing it to templates, it makes it really hard for users to change population, area, or links should the info become updated, especially for new users who may have good sources to add.
  2. In the most recent edit by 82.203.24.241, the infobox is wrong since there is a name in Cyrillic, which is not used in Vietnam. Furthermore, he/she changed the climate box in which colours were being removed for no apparent reason. The standard is that in all city articles containing the climate box, there should be colours; it makes it easier for readers to understand the table.
  3. None of the cities follow the format of adding in the wikidata in a format shown in these edits. If one looks at featured and good articles related to cities (e.g Istanbul, London, Manchester, etc.), none of them follow the format being used in those edits above. They all follow the format used in this page as shown in my revert in the infobox settlement.
  4. The templates that were transcluded (point 1) is redundant since the infobox already does the job nicely. Why make it more complicated or use a redundant template?

Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 what you say is exactly 100% wrong. The wikidata is a single source for all data; and infoboxes by their nature are wanted them the same, to may editing easier for editors.
2 I can't see anything in Cyrillic script; the only piece I can see is an old one about sister city in Belarus. By the way, this is English Wikipedia: there is plenty of Vietnamese script which should be removed. As well as Chinese (s and t), Khmer, etc. But not in this edit.
2a If colour is wanted in the climate box, its only one line. But why coloured? To me they look ghastly. And of course it is bad for poor eyesight. And they don't work well for B + W printers.
3 Look at other places. Look out Cebu City (and Cebu province), Tagbilaran as well as its province Bohol. In fact all infobox settlements in Central Visayas, about 100 altogether, use wikidata.
4 If you think the previous style (or lack of one) is uncomplicated, you shouldn't be an editor. Instead be a Luddite.
82.203.24.241 (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For point 2, it is confusing to readers about the Cyrllic script being shown randomly in the infobox. I see the script (in this version and it is Cyrillic since searching it leads to the Russian Wikipedia article on Ho Chi Minh City. While there is plenty of Vietnamese and Chinese script, this is used for indicating the history when these scripts were used. Cyrillic has never been used in Vietnam. These are two different scenarios. Also, if you say why colour looks ghastly, then how come the majority of climate boxes uses the coloured scheme by several editors? The consensus has been to use the colours (particularly for temperature, sunshine, avg days with rain/precip/snow, humidity). You claims that I should not be editor is basically a personal attack against another by trying to use the typical "my way or no way" attitude. I try to bring up my concerns on the talk page and if you resort to name calling, clearly, this issue will not be resolved. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly surprised to see that Russian Wikipedia is written in Russian. And user:Rubberduck23? -Alice 张梦平 07:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Zhang Mengping (talk • contribs) [reply]
This is not really related to the topic and why are you bringing in a past, unrelated incident to this topic. You are not answering the concerns and instead trying to show how stupid I am with reference to the Russian Wikipedia. Obviously, users do experience disputes with others but trying to use this is trying to show me in a negative light. You are just cherrypicking to prove a point. Not every user is perfect. I try to bring up my concerns but instead, you only focus on the editor, not the content. You accuse me of ownership and never assume good faith in the first place. Ironically, you are the one who exhibits ownership, as all those listed accounts have similar editing patterns to you to push their favoured version (i.e use wikidata templates in the infobox settlement, particularly places in Cebu and Bohol provinces where I see a lot of IP addresses with similar editing patterns). Alice Zhang Mengping has been accused on WP:OWN in the past (see talk page) and has repeatedly done so. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In line with WP:EPTALK, WP:BRD, the old version should be kept until the dispute is resolved given that other users object to similar changes in the past. Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ssbbplayer. Anyway, the change introduced by those people isn't only about the wikidata but they change a lot of other information, which was referenced to a book which noone read. Like this part:
The early dynastical entity was the Rhead-Sivakumaran family who dominated the region in the early Romanic period, until the Zhou dynasty overcame the armies of Rhead-Sivakumaran and General Behan in 820 BC.
I believe that part is never correct, it was added as vandalism as the first place, I explained it when I removed it with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ho_Chi_Minh_City&type=revision&diff=786436720&oldid=786434366 I support the rollback of Ssbbplayer and I against the usage of wikidata since I cannot find any consensus to use it anywhere except those article about Philippines 0x44616E68 (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ho_Chi_Minh_City&oldid=789763636"