Skip to content

[PROOFREADING] min306 - VI#4434

Open
nphuly wants to merge 2 commits into
PlanB-Network:devfrom
nphuly:proofreading-vi-min306
Open

[PROOFREADING] min306 - VI#4434
nphuly wants to merge 2 commits into
PlanB-Network:devfrom
nphuly:proofreading-vi-min306

Conversation

@nphuly

@nphuly nphuly commented Feb 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
  • Proodreading
  • Removed the unnecessary double line-break
  • Synchronized the use of technical terminology

Note:

I kept the English words (including technical terms) as they are because these are all words that Vietnamese people understand and use frequently in their studies and work!

Closes #4408

# Conflicts:
#	courses/min306/vi.md
@Asi0Flammeus Asi0Flammeus changed the title Proofreading min306 in Vietnamese [PROOFREADING] min306 - VI Apr 30, 2026
@Asi0Flammeus

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Hi @nphuly, thanks for working on this proofreading!

Before I finalize, I'd like to understand your intent on a few changes. Depending on your answers I'll either revert or apply them consistently across the rest of the file.

Please answer each point with intentional / not intentional:

  1. tốc độ bămhashrate — Was this intentional? You changed it in most places, but tỷ lệ băm (a synonym translation) still appears in lines 141, 219, 221, 361, 383. If intentional, I'll flip those too so all three forms unify under hashrate.

  2. nguồn mởmã nguồn mở — Was this intentional? You promoted it ~16 times, but the bare nguồn mở still appears in 12+ lines (e.g. 43, 71, 75, 89, 117, 119, 149, 163, 197, 261, 269). If intentional, I'll standardize the rest.

  3. Nhóm Công khai / nhóm công cộngPublic Pool — Was this intentional? You renamed it consistently (including the section heading), but nhóm công cộng still appears in lines 229, 243, 409, 413, 639 — even inside the "Public Pool" section. If intentional, I'll flip those too.

  4. Bitaxe mining vs đào Bitaxe — Did you intend to keep Bitaxe mining as a fixed brand-style phrase? It's preserved in 4 lines (e.g. 31, 213, 509, 543) while đào Bitaxe is used in 3 others. Either is fine, but I'd like to make it consistent.

Two small things I noticed I can fix directly once we settle the above:

  • Line ~202: Để sử dụng tạo các tệp này trong KiCad is ungrammatical (the prior version had a stray English generate left over). Should read Để tạo các tệp này trong KiCad.
  • The phrase if it hashes, it hashes was rendered as miễn là nó chạy được là được — this drops the hashing metaphor and shifts the meaning a bit. Happy to keep your version, but flagging it.

Just let me know your intent on (1)–(4) and I'll take care of making everything consistent before merging. Thanks!

@Asi0Flammeus Asi0Flammeus marked this pull request as draft April 30, 2026 09:35
@nphuly

nphuly commented May 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hi @Asi0Flammeus

  1. hashrate: Intentional. Same logic as mining - tốc độ băm/tỷ lệ băm don't carry the same precision. Please flip the remaining instances to hashrate.

  2. mã nguồn mở: Intentional. nguồn mở is an imprecise shorthand; mã nguồn mở is the correct full form. Please standardize the rest.

  3. Public Pool: Intentional, consistent with the loanword policy from the previous thread. Please flip the remaining instances.

  4. Bitaxe mining: Intentional. Since mining is kept as an English loanword, Bitaxe mining reads more naturally than đào Bitaxe. Please unify under Bitaxe mining.

On the two additional notes:

  • Line ~202: Yes, please fix to Để tạo các tệp này trong KiCad.
  • if it hashes, it hashes: I'd like to revise my translation. miễn là nó chạy được là được loses the hashing metaphor. Suggest replacing with miễn là nó băm được là được — it keeps the technical wordplay while still reading naturally in Vietnamese.

@nphuly nphuly marked this pull request as ready for review May 2, 2026 08:50
@nphuly

nphuly commented Jun 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hi @Asi0Flammeus,

Any update on this? Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[PROOFREADING] min306 - vi

2 participants