Talk:Hùng Kings' Festival

Public holiday?

Does this belong in the Category:Public holidays in Vietnam? Badagnani 04:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy section

I have read this section carefully for two times but I still don't understand its meanings. Could someone fix it please?--Amore Mio (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Page move

This page should not have been moved without prior discussion, and certainly not to a title in poor English grammar (as this is). Please move it back to the Vietnamese name pending discussion. Badagnani (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guideline says "anyone is free to move or edit any page without prior discussion" and I followed it.

Moreover, I provided a source from Vietnam's state-run radio station Voice of Vietnam for this title. If you found this tile is a bad grammatical one, feel free to fix it (note: the new title should come with sources). But I strongly oppose the usage of non-English name in English Wikipedia, except that this name has no official English translation.

At last, I removed your addition of Vietnamese vocabularies into the article, please don't do that again in Wikpedia because it is an encyclopedia not a text book.--Amore Mio (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The page was moved, without discussion, to a title in poor English. Please do not do that again, and move the page back pending discussion. Badagnani (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, answer my question: Do you ignore ALL sources which I cited for this title? If you don't answer, I won't discuss with you anymore.

Secondly, please show me a Wikipedia guideline that request me to discuss with Editor Badagnani before do anything. I will not hear your request except you give good reason instead of "and move the page back pending discussion", "prior discussion", or "kindly use discussion page" etc..--Amore Mio ^(talk) 01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to first answer why the page was moved, without prior discussion, to a title in poor English grammar. The fact that a single Vietnamese source uses poor English grammar does not mean the page should be moved, without prior discussion, to that title. Secondly, you'd need to answer why the wikilink death anniversary was removed, again and again. The use of "all red" text is quite unnecessary. Badagnani (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you has just removed my most recent message on your talkpage. Ok, I respect your decision of blacklisting me and I promise that I won't post anymore word into your talkpage.

"The fact that a single Vietnamese source uses poor English grammar does not mean the page should be moved" -> The fact that I provided three source from mainstream newspapers in Vietnam (all state-controlled). Ok, How many English source do you want? I'm willing to provide.

And could you point out why this title is a bad grammatical one? I still couldn't get your point because I found this title has no grammatical error.

OK, I found the answer.--Amore Mio ^(talk) 03:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of "all red" text is very necessary because you always ignore people's question.

"why the page was moved, without prior discussion" -> Because the old title is not a English language one and Wikipedia guideline don't request me to talk before doing anything. Thank you.

"to answer why the wikilink death anniversary was removed" Because it has nothing to do with the article, you could start a see also section instead of clarify individual vocabulary.

I think the main reason for this discussion is that you want to keep the title "Giỗ tổ". Mr Badagnani, could you answer me that how many percent of English-language speakers could understand this Vietnamese title?

--Amore Mio ^(talk) 02:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have waited for your reply for 1 hour but you keep silent. I'm about to go to my uni., so I let the matter drop. I hope that you would consider carefully before you editing anything without a solid knowledge and you would treat me with a friendlier attitude because I'm a wiki-friend of you.--Amore Mio ^(talk) 04:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly moderate your tone. In the case of page titles and moves, discussion really is necessary in order to arrive at the best page titles, and to avoid undermining the credibility of our encyclopedia through undiscussed page moves to titles in poor English grammar. Such discussion usually takes just a few days' time to evaluate the sources and see which title is most apt. Finally, and importantly, page titles should be at the most commonly used name. In some cases, there is no English name or the native name is the most widely used, such as Tết or Phở (instead of "Vietnamese New Year" or "Vietnamese beef rice noodle soup"). Regarding this page title, there has as yet been no evidence presented that this English title is the most widely used for this subject. Badagnani (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly stop using "Kindly". It sound like I'm bullying you.

"Regarding this page title, there has as yet been no evidence presented that this English title" The sources which I cited were evidences. Kindly stop ignoring them. Thanks

Moreover, Tết or Phở are totally different from this one. The word "Tet" entered English speaker world from a historicial event (Tet Offensive) and the word Phở comes from the English speakers who involved with Vietnam War. In the case of "Giỗ tổ Hùng Vương", there are offcial translation from Vietnamese themselves, we should use it per WP:MOS.

If you think this title is a poor grammatical one, you have the right to submit a petition to government of Vietnam to request them change it.--Amore Mio ^(talk) 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no grammar error with this YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hùng Kings' Festival. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090407032841/http://english.vovnews.vn/Home/Vietnamese-nationals-return-for-Hung-Kings-death-anniversary/20094/103128.vov to http://english.vovnews.vn/Home/Vietnamese-nationals-return-for-Hung-Kings-death-anniversary/20094/103128.vov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726175734/http://www.eng.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/eng/news/default_opennew.aspx?news_id=8186 to http://www.eng.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/eng/news/default_opennew.aspx?news_id=8186
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406092345/http://english.vietnamnet.vn/politics/2007/03/674288/ to http://english.vietnamnet.vn/politics/2007/03/674288/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.na.gov.vn/htx/Vietnamese/default.asp?Newid=5172

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)