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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: reasonable consensus & disambiguation page already exists, and no need for further duplication WP:MOSDAB billinghurst sDrewth 03:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ca Mau (city) → Cà Mau — Conforms to generally accepted practice on Vietnam geography articles. See Thái Nguyên and Thái Nguyên Province (which just came out of requested moves), or Bắc Giang and Bắc Giang Province as another example. Also recommending that Ca Mau (w/o diacritics) be redirected to new article, with disambiguation provided by hatnotes. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Also, to be consistent, move Ca Mau Peninsula → Cà Mau Peninsula, and Ca Mau Province → Cà Mau Province. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a dab page should exist. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see a strong need, seeing as there are only four article in the dab page—all of them relating directly to the main article—but OK, how about instead of redirecting to the city article, Ca Mau can be moved to Cà Mau (disambiguation). That would make the distinction clearer. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Or it would be quite appropriate to disambiguate using a hatnote, as all the articles refer to variations of the same place. The city is clearly the primary topic, after which the other three have been named. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with or without a dab page. — AjaxSmack 05:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also moved Ca Mau Airport to Cà Mau Airport billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 14 July 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

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: all 6 pages moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ca Mau → Cà Mau
• My Tho → Mỹ Tho
• Quang Ngai → Quảng Ngãi
• Rach Gia → Rạch Giá
• Thu Dau Mot → Thủ Dầu Một
• Vinh Yen → Vĩnh Yên

– Housekeeping. Restore remaining 6 Vietnamese cities moved counter result of Cần Thơ RM 2011. In the case of Cà Mau an earlier RM 2010 to Cà Mau was archived by IP before move. Vietnamese diacritics increasingly used in English language materials: e.g. Cà Mau Industrial Zone, Nghia Saigon: A History 2011 "The main port in Cochinchina was Saigon, which was connected by secondary ports: Mỹ Tho, Vĩnh Long, Sa Đéc," etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support these moves were counter to a previous RM. Should be moved back. Request speedy procedural close and move.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. WP:NCGN, our guideline on geography, states, "Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name." These three references do not use Vietnamese diacritics. Here are the links for Britannica: Ca Mau, My Tho, Quang Ngai, Rach Gia, and Thu Dau Mot. See also Encarta and Columbia. Aside from a few towns moved at IIO's initiative in recent weeks, all the Vietnamese provinces, cities, and districts are currently at non-diacritic titles. Published English-language sources rarely use these diacritics, including Vietnam-based sites like Viet Nam News or VietnamNet. National Geographic probably has more experience with a wider variety of diacritics than anyone else. They advise not to use Vietnamese diacritics because the large number of marks is "distracting". Here are Jimbo's thoughts on the issue of Dang Huu Phuc vs. Đặng Hữu Phúc. Kauffner (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Jimbo? —  AjaxSmack  01:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy GoodDay was whinging at. And GoodDay was AC:Restricted re diacritics for his bias towards them. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support per the result of the previous RM. ༆ (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus in that RM, and the vote was 6 to 5 in favor of non-diacritic titles. We are not supposed to follow previous RMs, but rather guidelines, for example WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". Kauffner (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Kauffner, I would really like to WP:AGF, but it's quite difficult with comments like this one: "Aside from a few towns moved at IIO's initiative in recent weeks, all the Vietnamese provinces, cities, and districts are currently at non-diacritic titles." I took a look today at List_of_cities_in_Vietnam, and looked at their history. Below I show my results, just up to D - almost every single city has been moved *AWAY* from diacritics in the past year, by YOU (or by innocent admins, proxied by you via G6 moves). So to claim that this is some sort of wiki-wide consensus is ridiculous; if anything, the consensus of article creators and editors was to leave these with diacritics, and your +1000 pages moved over the past year goes against that trend.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9]. I will also note here for the record that Viet Nam News, one of the largest english-language newspapers in Vietnam (and a source pointed to by Kauffner above and in many other remarks), publishes its paper version using diacritics [10]--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support restoration of diacritics. For example, Cà Mau per RM of July 2010 (see Talk:Ca Mau/Archive 1) and only last month moved to the current ASCII title without benefit of an RM. BTW there seems little reason to have archived that earlier RM discussion, since this current RM and the 2010 RM appear to be the only content that has ever appeared on this fairly short talk page. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as housekeeping. Page was moved after a RM did not support said move. Agathoclea (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as housekeeping and on merits. It shouldn't take repeated RMs to enforce a previous RM. —  AjaxSmack  01:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as above, to restore prior consensus and per the destinations being the correct names. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I had no idea of the extent of the move campaign. Thanks Obi-Wan. This is much the same pattern of behaviour seen in so many "format" issues - user changes articles, gets opposition, but ignores objections and keeps changing thousands of articles. Time to propose restrictions on this user from making any move where the existing title has any diacritics, or from proposing any such moves as "uncontroversial". Gimmetoo (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per prior RM. -DJSasso (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per precedent, to restore consensus, and per restoration of diacritics/correct names. Hopefully this post will pull this out of the backlog. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:36, 23 August 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.