Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam

Completely unsourced BLP, this was proposed for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chams#Requested move 10 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:English personal pronouns#Requested move 2 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to revise WP:VIETPLACE? Given that Vietnam has implemented a new local government system since July 2025, the current convention – which applies to cities (thành phố), towns (thị xã), urban districts (quận) and rural districts (huyện), all of which were abolished after the administrative reform – no longer works.

Some issues to consider are:

• Naming conventions for former cities, towns and districts:
  • All district (quận and huyện) articles currently have the word "district" appended after the placename. This is fine and we can leave them as it is.
  • But most of the cities and towns are currently still the primary topic (e.g.: Thủ Dầu Một, Mỹ Tho, Bắc Giang, Hạ Long, Đồng Hới, Đông Hà...). This makes little sense since they no longer exists. Should they be changed to "Placename (city/town)" instead?
• Wards/communes named after the former cities, towns and districts (e.g. Thủ Dầu Một, Ho Chi Minh City, Mỹ Tho, Đồng Tháp, Bắc Giang, Bắc Ninh...). Should they be the primary topic? Or there's no primary topic for these cases?
• Places named after people when there's no article on the person it's named after (e.g. Dương Minh Châu, Trần Văn Thời, Lục Sĩ Thành, Hồ Đắc Kiện...). One issue with this kind of placename in Vietnam is, they are mostly the exact name of the person, rather than just taking their first name or last name of the person like other countries? Therefore, I personally think that leaving the title as it is can be misleading, since it can obviously refer to the person, not the place. Maybe appending the province's name after the place's name?

Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Given that it forms part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and is deemed to somewhat have site wide consensus it should be advertised elsewhere. I see that it was added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming but I think a short neutral note at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would be a good idea. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 03:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The cities and towns you mention with “since they no longer exists [sic]”, still actually exist. They just don’t have their own administrative level anymore, but the actual cities and towns are unchanged, regardless of administrative organization. They should obviously still be the primary topics. And as for those wards and communes, should we really have independent articles about them? Like, is there anything interesting to say about Bắc Giang ward that would not be better placed in the article about the actual city of Bắc Giang? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Those wards have legal recognition, and in fact they are currently second-level subdivisions of Vietnam (given that district-level no longer exists). I can see that there are articles on second-level subdivisions in most countries, many of which are stubs. So I don’t see any reason why Vietnam would be an exception? Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree Thủ Dầu Một is still Thủ Dầu Một, Da Lat is still Da Lat (at least until now) but these can be changed in the future, like Sài Gòn, Saigon or Sai Gon is now Ho Chi Minh City. And almost Vietnamese Wikimedian users think communes and wards in Vietnam are not primary topic because they are very small. I wonder here if I can call Lai Vung district is Lai Vung, Tân Châu (town) is Tân Châu town, An Giang, I can't find them only based on their articles? I think WP:VIETPLACE need to be updated. Henrydat (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

“Also, if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law.” In my opinion, Vietnamese phường and xã are like this: they are purely administrative divisions. If they correspond to something in the real world, then sure, go ahead and make an article, but otherwise no. In other countries, administrative divisions tend to follow real-world divisions, which is why they are much more fixed than in Vietnam. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You might want to add more on “real-world divisions”. What does that term even mean? What are the criteria for a division to be “real-world”? And when you said “ they are purely administrative divisions”… I mean, what else are you expecting them to be? Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I found "widely accepted name" and "use modern names" in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Henrydat (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

If you insist that they "still actually exist", then when should be the proper definition of these. Definitely can't call them cities and towns anymore because they no longer have those status. If you are talking about something that people still commonly refer to, then that's a placename, a toponym (địa danh), rather than a city or town – which should be legally recognized, and have a local government. I'm not sure whether there are any precedent where a primary topic is a placename or toponym here? Perhaps someone else can help with this? Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. There is no need for something to be legally recognised for it to exist. The name of a city is always a placename or toponym, regardless of whether it is legally recognised (and regardless of whether the Vietnamese language calls it địa danh or something else). A city is a city and a town is a town, regardless of what governments call them. The “widely accepted names” mentioned in Wikipedia policy often do not coincide with government names. And do I really need to explain to you what the real world is?

Well then, here is an example. The urban district (phường) of Hải Châu plus the ones surrounding it make up the actual city (thành thị) of Đà Nẵng. Those are a small part of the municipality (thành phố trực thuộc trung ương) of Đà Nẵng. The municipality counts several more towns (Hội An, Điện Bàn, Tam Kỳ; it seems that all of these have been split into several urban districts). What interests readers of a dictionary is the cities and towns, not the districts that the government uses to administrate them. So, in addition to an article about the municipality (which can be the primary topic for all I care), we should have articles about the actual towns. The article about Tam Kỳ should cover the district of Tam Kỳ plus the other districts that are part of the town. If there is anything interesting to say about just the district of Tam Kỳ (which I doubt), an article could be created about the district.

We don’t have articles about all individual US voting districts either, no matter how important they are for governing. We don’t need a million stubs like Tiên Phước district, especially as there are even more second-tier divisions now and they will be even less interesting. All the information there could be put into the Da Nang article.

Okay, WP:VIETPLACE needs to be updated, but it also really needs to specify not to mass-create stubs for the current ephemeral administrative divisions.

– MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I hardly find your statement "A city is a city and a town is a town, regardless of what governments call them" convincing. Is it up to how you call them, then? Keep in mind that Wikipedia contents are based on sources (WP:V), not subjective views. Phrases like "for all I care" or "anything interesting" are examples of subjective views. Given that this discussion is on Wikipedia contents, which requires verifiability, is it appropriate to argue based on those?

Nevertheless, I think you are having a misconception between city/town, and urban area in general. Your illustration of the "actual city" or "actual town" very much correspond with the latter.

Second, whether or not articles should be created, is the topic of notability (WP:N), not naming conventions. Therefore including them in the revised WP:VIETPLACE (as you suggested) is definitely off-topic, and hence very inappropriate. You can start another RfC to revise WP:NGEO, and add guidelines on Vietnam's "ephemeral" administrative divisions if you want, but they cannot go here. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources do not have be government sources. It isn’t all that difficult to find sources that refer to thành thị Đà Nẵng to denote the urban area (the actual city, not the municipality), but obviously thành phố Đà Nẵng cũ is more common. 🤷

Naming is only an issue if we decide to create articles. Given that most phường and xã do not deserve articles, the naming debate is irrelevant. And actually, we already had both these discussions before, and Hwi.padam agreed with me that “Yes, we are not making articles for every ward”. But hey, it looks like Welches2012 and Its5yearsalready couldn’t care less.

– MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

“Given that most phường and xã do not deserve articles”. Again, unless this is actually a statement in WP:NGEO, or there’s actually a consensus elsewhere (that is not just a discussion between two people, as it concerns a whole topic rather than just a few articles), it’s nothing more than just a personal view of yours.

So if you want people to follow that and stop creating new articles on them, or deleting existing ones, then it would make more sense to create an RfC for consensus instead of complaining about them still doing it (as they are currently not obligated to follow your point). I would still argue that, phường and xã are now the 2nd-level administrative divisions, most countries have articles on 2nd-level subdivisions then why would Vietnam be an exception? See these two lists for yourself: List of townships/cities and districts in Taiwan, List of administrative divisions of Fujian. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: From what I'm seeing, you are only taking examples of Da Nang and Quang Nam place names to support your argument (not only in this discussion, but also the other with Hwi.padam), and assume that those are the standards for all of Vietnam's wards and communes. Unfortunately, that's rather biased and does not make any sense at all. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a statement in WP:NGEO, as I mentioned before: “Also, if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law.” I have not yet seen a single argument why this class of division is notable. Townships (the example given in WP:NGEO) are second-level in many US states. The fact that something is second-level (or any other level) does not make it automatically notable. The fact that my examples come from Central Vietnam has got nothing to do with the point; the administrative divisions are the same in the entire country. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok? And has there been any consensus to list phường/xã in Vietnam into that not-notable class of division? I don't think so. At this moment, the one thing we only know for sure is that they have legal recognition, nothing more than that. And per WP:NGEO, they are presumably notable. And then if that's not enough for you, I have included the list of the very similar subdivisions in China and Taiwan above. Those are the precedent that I used to support my argument. If the phường/xã of Vietnam have been deemed unnotable (must be via a consensus, not from your words), then there's no reason why the towns/counties of China and Taiwan haven't. And the truth is, they are still existing.

The bias in your argument that I'm talking about is that: You mostly use Da Nang to refer to the old downtown, and you assume that it's the case for other people, as well as all other cities in Vietnam. Wikipedia is not about one's perspective.

Some other points from your argument that I found unconvincing are:

• Favoring the use informal contexts and denying the formal contexts (legal recognition, like literally refuse to acknowledge it). There's a reason why legal recognition comes first in WP:NGEO: because it's something that's more common, and easier to verify, which are two key basis for evaluating notability. Legal recognition should carry at least as much weight as formal contexts when evaluating notability—if not more.
• Comparing admin divisions with voting districts. What kind of comparison is this? Voting districts are only used for voting purposes. Do they appear on one's birth certificate? Meanwhile, the phường/xã of Vietnam currently appeared on hundred thousands of birth certificate, and on several other types of legal documents.

"The fact that something is second-level (or any other level) does not make it automatically notable." I guess all of the 23 provinces and municipalities that were involved with the provincial merger, are not notable as well? Since they are "ephemeral", or whatever you called it. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

From your reasoning, it seems to me that you are annoyed with this merger (I know a lot of people are), and you refuse to refer to the places by their new name. And your argument is like "People are not even going with these name, why even bother creating those articles?" If that's the case, then yeah that's what a bias really is. 🤷

To sum up, the phường/xã are currently not deemed unnotable as you argued (they might not have been deemed notable – which make sense because they are brand new, and there hasn't been any project-scope discussion on them – but definitely not deemed unnotable). So if you wish to add it to the unnotable class of division of WP:NGEO, you will need to start a RfC and follow the steps accordingly. Meanwhile, since they are currently not deemed unnotable, this discussion about naming is still valid. Therefore if you continue to talk about the notability, I will consider them off-topic discussion. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that we shouldn't make articles of the wards cause of, y'know lack of data and the visual repetition of it? Welches2012 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Welches2012 I think his argument is something like “These wards and communes are completely brand new, people are not even going with these name, they will still use the old name so why even bother creating those articles?". And maybe he also thinks that these articles will always remain stubs and won’t be able to be further developed. If so I disagree with this because just simply adding the history of the former subdivisions prior to the merger, is enough to convert them from stub-class to start-class. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Welches2012 (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

That is not my argument, but well, sorry for not making any arguments you are able to comprehend.

Also sorry for not knowing that when Vietnamese newspapers print thành phố Đà Nẵng cũ, it is because they are “annoyed with this merger” and “refuse to refer to the places by their new name”.

Sorry for not knowing that those Vietnamese newspapers are all biased for daring to write about Central Vietnam.

Sorry for not knowing that US townships are only about voting. (In my defense: you are probably the only person in the world to know that.) And for not knowing that administration is infinitely more important than voting.

Sorry for not knowing that being present on birth certificates automatically makes everything notable. And sorry for not creating articles about all government clerks that ever signed birth certificates; they are all notable, aren’t they?

Sorry for proposing that those articles should not all be mass-created in a section about naming them, so making this section pointless. Unforgivable, I know.

Did you know there’s a thread over at Discord where they poke fun at articles that contain nothing but interminable lists of technical factoids? I’m sure they’ll love articles that are just “the history of the former subdivisions prior to the merger”. I think I’ll join them. We’re going to laugh so much at your articles.

– MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Yikes man settle down a little bit, no need to get hostile on a talk page. Welches2012 (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

"sorry for not making any arguments you are able to comprehend" Oh god, finally there's a point we both agree on. And yes, that's exactly why I asked you to explain what "real world" means? But you seemed to be unhappy about it ("And do I really need to explain to you what the real world is?"). I mean, do I not even have the right to question you if I'm unclear about your statement? But now I honestly regret asking that question because it gets even messier as you explain it. As far as I can see, it's not just me, Welches2012 also had to ask "So you are suggesting that we shouldn't make articles of the wards cause of, y'know lack of data and the visual repetition of it?" Man, make arguments that are easier to comprehend, so that we don't have to guess what they actually means!!! Finally, YES, this discussion is pointless, because people can't even understand what your point really is. And until that somehow improves, there's no reason to discuss this further. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: To sum up, I think MuDavid's argument's logic is something like this: "Because I don't find it interesting, it is not notable". He has brought up the word "interesting" in his first argument, and his last statement "I’m sure they’ll love articles that are just “the history of the former subdivisions prior to the merger”" pretty much confirms this point. I don't see a word "interesting" as a criteria for evaluating notability in WP:NOTE, which makes total sense because whether or not something is "interesting" entirely depends on one's... interest, rather than evidence or proof, and hence it's completely against WP:NOTESSAY. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Restore deleted content: If you want we can change WP:VIETPLACE because districts, towns and townships in Vietnam do not exist, communes and wards were not mentioned and district instead of District. Henrydat (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Additional, province instead of Province per Talk:An Giang province#Requested move 7 November 2021. Henrydat (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Just a reminder that a place name that no longer exists administratively does not mean it "no longer exists" historically, colloquially, or even retrospectively in current formal contexts. Greenknight dv (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Đá Bạc, Cà Mau#Requested move 8 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bình Tân district, Vĩnh Long#Requested move 10 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Template_talk:Contains_special_characters#Are there still devices that do not support Thai and Vietnamese ? Cormogeon (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lai Vung commune#Requested move 1 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place over on the Talk Page for Trường Chinh which is within the scope of this project. If you feel inclined to participate, please feel free to contribute to the discussion thread here. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Viet people be moved to Kinh people, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bình Tân district, Vĩnh Long province#Requested move 10 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)