Talk:An Tư

Han tu

What are the Han tu for this name? Badagnani (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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 result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

An Tu → An Tư – Restore to original title and correct vowel sound. A semi-legendary figure of a bride given to a Mongolian invader, princess An Tư only appears in English sources in the context of the title of a drama about her - where it is written in English as Vietnamese "An Tư". ư is a close central unrounded vowel like the ɨ sound in South-Eastern British "roses" [ˈɹoʊzɨz]. The undiscussed move to u is to a close back rounded vowel like Italian, Spanish or German "u", or "boot" in Singaporean English. This may sound trivial but Tu and Tư are different words in Vietnamese and connect back to different 11th-19th Century Sino-Vietnamese characters. "An Tư" (安姿) means "peaceful figure", the little hook on the ư is as much part of the name as the dots in Chloë or Zoë. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment what do Mongol records and Chinese records call here? Since she became the wife of the Mongol ruling house of China at the time, there should be something there. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

70.24.250.103 there's no mention in Yuan records. If she truly existed she wouldn't have been that significant among Toghan's concubines. She's only remembered in Vietnam. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support diacritics were historically dropped for convience in typing. Today, we can take an extra few seconds and learn to type in the characters with the diacritics. I do encourage use of fully using the diacritics as to preserve the meaning of the words. Keep diacrics for non-anglicized words. ༆ (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The nomination misunderstands the purpose of titles. They are supposed to tell the reader the common English-language name of the subject, not give pronunciation. “The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources),” per WP:USEENGLISH. The other major encyclopedias, including Britannica, Columbia, and Encarta, all drop Vietnamese diacritics. So do the international news sources, so does the Vietnam-based English-language media, so do the travel guides, and so do the overview “History of Vietnam"-type history books. This subject doesn't come up anywhere in Web-based RS, but you can check the results for her father: Google reliable sources on Vietnam for "Tran Thai Tong" (24 results after deghosting). [For the control, Google reliable sources on Vietnam for "Trần Thái Tông"

gets no results.] See also Baomoi (5 results). To put diacritics in the title when there are none in the RS misleads the reader as to what real world English-language usage is. Update: The primary source for this story is a Chinese-language official history. "An Tư" is not a form of the subject's name that she would have recognized. I note that we also remove the diacritics from transliterated Chinese names. Kauffner (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The English source Vietnamese Theater 1999 p22 gives An Tư. How the subject appears in the Đại Việt sử kí toàn thư (1479) isn't relevant. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's Thế Giới Publishers in Hanoi. They put out titles like Việt Nam on the Path of Renewal. There isn't even any biographical information, just a mention of a modern play. Surely the daughter's name should be in the same format as her better-known father. "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles," per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Kauffner (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested. You cannot argue from your own undiscussed moves to support your own undiscussed moves. The English source Vietnamese Theater 1999 p22 gives An Tư. The same would be the case if the publisher was University of California Press, Oxford University Press, so again not relevant. Can you try not to fill up the page please. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So once again it turns out that it is all about getting back at me over things that happened years ago. I'm sure there are many people have moved more articles than I have. Did somebody appoint you chief of article titling? Kauffner (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, you raised another article you had undiscussed-moved. Again, it's not relevant. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The article was moved by an admin almost two years ago. That you went to the trouble trouble of figuring out who requested the move, and now see fit to complain about it, is obsessive behavior.Kauffner (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, you raised it, who is complaining about it? Isn't everyone delighted with your undiscussed moves?

Back to this RM, the sole English source Vietnamese Theater 1999 p22 still gives An Tư. Enough already. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If we follow whatever GBooks says, pretty much every other Vietnam-related name would be diacritics free, including the other members of the subject's family. So why not? Kauffner (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

WP:BRD, twice

Have to do the D bit. See edit summary:

This template is used on thousands of articles, and the term "Han-Nom" certainly exists) (current)

The altering/creating/pasting of this template relates to the creation of Han-Nom duplicate. Therefore reverted again. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a temper tantrum. Whether or not you get your way at Han-Nom is not logically connected to the template issue. Even if we got rid of the article, my understanding is that we would keep the template, including the descriptor "Han-Nom". Only the links would be adjusted. Kauffner (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Was this Toghon Temür??

Toghon Temür was born in 1320. So it seems unlikely that he led an army in 1285. -- Wassermaus (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)