Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". |
[edit] Diacritical Marks
Values to consider:
- Preservation of meanings. Removing diacritical marks makes it hard to discern the original meaning of the word.
- Accessibility. The typing of diacritical marks is limited to those who can download the appropriate software and are trained in its usage.
- This makes the input of diacritical marks less accessible from a technical standpoint, unless the ability in built into the wiki software itself, which at this point is limited to the Vietnamese version of Wikipedia. Thus, there is a need for a universal input method editor.
- URLs are more difficult to input if they contain diacritical marks, whether represented in its diacritical form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Âu_Lạc) or ASCII-compatible form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%82u_L%E1%BA%A1c), unless there is a way to show non-diacritic URLs to its diacritic page name (so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_Lac shows up on the Âu Lạc article as the permanent link, instead of the aforementioned forms.
- Practicality. There will always be people who will type the names without diacritical marks, perhaps more than people who can properly input the diacritical marks. This places burden on the capable to "correct" the usage of diacritical marks. Instead, we should consider an order of importance on what should be considered "corrected".
- Page titles, headings, and the leading line of the first paragraph are very important.
- Information boxes, especially ones that delineate different forms of the subject in question in which it is known or spelled-out are also very important.
- Body text is less important.
- References and external links are least important.
- Reputation (Popular Usage). We should use the form that is found in most citable and verifiable sources, such as encyclopedias and publisher-reviewed books.
- We should consider using Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar first to determine the weight of the diacritical vs non-diacritical forms in English news, literature and academia respectively. Websites of government and educational institutions (written in English) should also be considered. Of secondary importance is a general search on Google for usage on websites (which does contain a lot of independently published webpages).
- If a certain form is clearly used more than the other (10,000 vs 200 hits), use the more popular form. If both forms are close (120,000 vs 100,000 hits), then other factors must be considered.
