Talk:Gqeberha/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 28 March 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago114 comments34 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is quite a bit of support for this proposal, but also a lot of opposition, citing evidence that this is a slow-burn shift in usage rather than a quick one, and that usage of the new name doesn't clearly predominate yet. Several editors also raised the issue that the previous close imposed a moratorium, which was not honoured here, and without evidence that anythign significant had changed to merit IAR-ing that moratorium. As such, from the discussion I determine that there is still no consensus, and impose a further one-year moratorium, dated from the start of this RM. There should be ~~no further discussions on this until at least 28 March 2023~~, and such discussions may be speedily closed, unless there is very strong evidence of a major shift compared with the situation now. — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Update October 2022 - given the discussion below, I'm now lifting this moratorium and editors are free to start a fresh RM at any time. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Port Elizabeth → Gqeberha – City has been renamed for over a year and reliable sources regularly use the new name.

Gqeberha man killed while pushing car - 27 March 2022

Gqeberha-based automotive company to invest millions in EC - 26 March 2022

Fury as Nelson Mandela University staffer runs her Gqeberha office from Qatar - 24 March 2022

Gqeberha pupils suspended after running amok in TikTok challenge - 24 March 2022

Remember from PE to Gqeberha? South Africa continues to change more town names! - March 21 2022

Mokoka breaks world 50km record with 2:40:13 in Gqeberha - 2022

Ryle de Morny sizzles at DHL Lifesaving championships in Gqeberha - March 24 2022

Career criminal from Gqeberha sentenced to 130 years imprisonment - March 23 2022

South Africa: Minister Senzo Mchunu visits Gqeberha - March 14 2022

South Africa: Gqeberha Shop Owners Fear the Rise in Xenophobia - 11 March 2022

Gqeberha bus shelters in ruins after contractor abandons site - 15 March 2022

Red Bull BC One: B-Girl Mids & B-Boy Ranks win cypher in Gqeberha - February 28 2022

These are a diverse range of sources from multiple news outlets. Desertambition (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 23:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Added dates to support current WP:COMMONNAME. Desertambition (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Greenman, MSG17, Ortizesp, RicardoNixon97, The C of E, Park3r, Toddy1, Peter Ormond, Szmenderowiecki, Roman Spinner, Invinciblewalnut, Iggy the Swan, Vic Park, Suffy69, and Vpab15: Notifying participants from previous RM. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Discott: as well, there may be others missing from previous discussions. Greenman (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Greenman. I am on record being in support of moving the article to Gqeberha, as it seems to now be its common name as well as its official name, and I would like to repeat that again here. Discott (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I only pinged editors from the previous RM; it seems the only two that excluded was Discott and @Fbergo:. BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

France24 is also using Gqeberha:

S. Africa hope to end poor Durban run against Bangladesh - "South African captain Dean Elgar admitted on Monday that he was less than delighted that the Tests are being played in Durban and Gqeberha, formerly Port Elizabeth, another city where South Africa have struggled." Desertambition (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy close. Per the closer of the previous discussion, this question should not be reopened until at least a year has past since the previous discussion, and it has been less than six months. BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't aware I, as a page mover, had the power to unilaterally impose moratoria on Wikipedia!! Cool, can't wait to use this new ability! Do you have any actual reason why this move shouldn't be carried out? Red Slash 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Speedy close 5 months since the last move request with no significant new information. Note that this is the 4th time in the past year this user had made the same request. --Spekkios (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Neither comment is based on existing WP:GUIDELINES. I have presented the new information quite plainly. 5 months is quite a long time and given the time frame, I think it's reasonable that we should take another look at what reliable sources are saying. Use of the new name is widespread and has become the WP:COMMONNAME. Desertambition (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
This is WP:DEADHORSE, WP:NOTAGAIN, etc. You have presented 12 news articles instead of the 5 you presented last time. We can go look at trends, number of articles that use either name, etc. As I said: speedy close, nothing new. --Spekkios (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Google trends is not a magic wand that can be used to dismiss every source. We are missing a lot of context from that and it's clear that reliable news sources, especially in South Africa, are using Gqeberha instead of Port Elizabeth. Desertambition (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
They are not using Gqeberha over Port Elizabeth. Since the change, news sources have been using them in roughly equal amounts. Compare results for Gqeberha vs Port Elizabeth. They are the same. 12 sources is way to few to argue that reliable news sources use one over the other. This change is far too WP:RECENT to know what the WP:COMMONNAME is, so we should stick with the current name as the long-term primary topic. As such, I oppose this proposal. --Spekkios (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Support. This title change is well-supported in RS, so this article should be titled with the official name. As closer of the previous request, I also support this new request and would like to see it stay the course and come to consensus. No time limits are etched in stone, and consensus can change, sometimes sooner rather than later. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 04:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This is a reply to this notification. BilledMammal (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  - I would not say that I was "canvassed" if that is the implication here. I'm watching these closely, so I would have entered my rationale anyway. And I thought I should !vote rather than close since I closed a previous move request on this talk page, and some editors might consider me to be too "involved" to close this request. I think it's time to recognize the new names for these cities and towns. The secondary, independent, reliable sources that were published after the name changes do seem to give more weight and usage to the new names. And this will only grow stronger as more and more reliable sources use the new names. So changing this article's title may as well happen now, because if it doesn't, then it will surely be changed soon – certainly sooner rather than later. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 15:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. While I still believe that this move should be closed, per the closers previous statements, and the fact that four requests in a single year is far too many, if it is not then I also oppose it on the grounds that the name has not yet become the common name. For example, Google Scholar has 3430 results for Port Elizabeth, while only 434 for Gqeberha - while some of the results for the former refer to historical events, 90% would need to be for Gqeberha to be used more the Port Elizabeth in reference to the modern city, and the number is far less than that. Further, news agencies are split. The New York Times has seven results for Port Elizabeth" in the past year, across a variety of topics, compared to eight results for Gqeberha, almost all of which are on a single topic, an Aspen Pharmacare vaccine production site. CNN meanwhile has a single result for Port Elizabeth and a single result for Gqeberha, plus one result where it announced the change, and the Economist has one result for Port Elizabeth and no results for Gqeberha, plus one result where it announced the change.

It is also trivial to produce a list of reliable sources longer the the nominators that use Port Elizabeth, which counters their claim that they have demonstrated that the proposed name is now the common name - and I note that not all of the sources they provided are suitable, such as the one from Red Bull. For example:

BilledMammal (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

As in previous instances, I wonder how many usages of "Port Elizabeth" in the searches actually do apply to the name of the city and not to some entity within the city? For example, a Port Elizabeth Deli and a Port Elizabeth theme park might retain their names even though the city itself has been renamed. How is this important distinction made in the searches? (if it even can be made at all?) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 05:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It's important to note that Gqeberha changed its name in February of 2021. Most of the sources you have linked are from before the name change and thus aren't applicable in this situation.

Your sources are from:

26 October 2019

4 January 2018

21 October 2018

14 February 2019

3 December 2018

17 February 2018

21 October 2018

26 April 2021

May 7, 2021

May 21, 2021

Nov 1, 2021 - There is no actual mention of Port Elizabeth in this article, just an embedded tweet.

Dec 31, 2021

Nov 24, 2021 - This article is referring to an event prior to the name change

Aug 31, 2021 - This is an opinion article

Sep 23, 2021 - Single passing mention in the article in reference to a project which has been in development for years.

Dec 6, 2021 - Single passing mention

None of the sources are from 2022. Newer sources are needed to prove WP:COMMONNAME, like the ones provided above. Desertambition (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Also, you can't vote twice. Please condense both of your comments into one post. Desertambition (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Strange. I used a Google search, rather than a Google News search, for those, and it seems to have ignored my date restriction of the past year. However, I note that it is irrelevant whether we are looking at a "passing mention" or something more substantial, as both provide us equal information on what name is in use. See the following for a list of uses since the name change:

Of course, all this proves is that "Port Elizabeth" is in use - just as all your evidence proves is that Gqeberha is in use - but it is useful, if only for demonstrating how the links you provided are not useful for the purposes of determining the common name. BilledMammal (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, almost all of those links are still less recent than the ones provided above and most of them are not from 2022. The sources provided also put the new name front and center in both the headline and the body of the article, whereas most of the articles you have linked only mention Port Elizabeth once in passing. Desertambition (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ten of them are from March 2022. The rest are the suitable links from the previous list. While whether the mention is passing or not is irrelevant, I note that many of yours are also passing mentions, such as this story. BilledMammal (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Clearly we won't agree. The only thing to do is wait for more editors to give their input. Desertambition (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Of the New York Times usage of Port Elizabeth, three at the time of viewing refer to historical events. The single CNN reference to Port Elizabeth is from April 2020. The single Economist example for Port Elizabeth refers to 2016. It should be fairly clear that current usage tends towards Gqeberha. Greenman (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. When there is a trend towards a name change, that name often starts to be used historically for the city - even if you disagree, these sources are at most neutral on the change (note how CNN's uses of Gqeberha seem to be limited to stories about a specific vaccine facility, suggesting that they are reflecting some document about that facility and are thus not independent of each other), and we will need more time to tell which way they will swing. Further, every piece of systematic evidence presented suggests that there is no trend towards Gqeberha. BilledMammal (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose and speedy close. We've been around and around on this one enough for the time being. The most common name is still the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Support It is the new name and there appear to be sufficient RS to provide justification. As an aside I suspect that both names will continue to be used for an extended period. Gusfriend (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment Since this is the 4th RM in less than a year, I propose a 1-year WP:MORATORIUM on RMs for this article, after this RM is closed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would support this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
A one-year moratorium would seem wise at this point. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Not counting the two aborted move requests (one of which was literally just a templating mistake), this is the second move request in one year. Two. In one year. That is ... not excessive. Red Slash 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose: While this is likely an inevitable transition at some point (assuming the official name remains fixed), for now, based on current GLOBAL usage, it seems too early for this move. There was still substantial scholarly output on the city under the name "Port Elizabeth" in 2021, compared to a mere trickle for Gqeberha and it is a bit too early to see how (and whether) things have changed in 2022. In terms of news, the examples cited are solely from within South Africa, whereas the WP:COMMONNAME must be based on usage in global English-language coverage, where the naming convention still appears to be in flux. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why the global usage matters. If Americans and Canadians and Australians all started calling the River Thames the River Timmy, I doubt we'd move the article. WP:TIES controls. Red Slash 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Although local usage has almost exclusively switched, global usage still matters. That said, most of the evidence provided here fails to take into account that many of the results refer to the historical name of the city. The scholar.google link first page alone includes many results from "Anatomy of the ANC in Power: Insights from Port Elizabeth, 1990 to 2019". Port Elizabeth was the name of the city for the entire period in question. Greenman (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment Whilst I think that it would make sense to rename the page now, a delay whilst the consensus is built up would provide an excellent chance to work on the name change part of articles like this as well as List of renamed places in South Africa and related pages. Gusfriend (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Support - the usage in sources has shifted enough since the name change that we should follow that shift. This is essentially an attempt to maintain the preferences of the former colonial masters, and if the English language sources had ignored the name change that might be technically Wikipedia's preference, but given that they have shifted over I see no justification for not following suit. See also Talk:Qonce#Requested move 27 November 2021. nableezy - 17:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per outcome of previous RMs and the fact that changing the name does not make it the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Support - of course the people who oppose the move anyway say "it's too soon!". Without even looking at the sources that clearly show that the common name has been shifting, they confidently assert that nothing has changed. Also, is counting that hard? September 30 to March 29 is six months, not five. What is lost by switching the name of the article to the new name? Do South Africa's WP:TIES to this article mean nothing? Do the opposers have anything to defend their opposition besides "it's too soon" or some cherry-picked examples (from a whopping three different South African domains)? South Africans get to decide the names of cities in South Africa. It is flamboyantly imperialistic for another country to impose their names on South Africa. As the common name in English for this city in South Africa has become "Gqeberha" (see the cited sources, from a significantly wider variety of SA sites), so also should the article title. Red Slash 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- WP:TIES isn't relevant here; WP:MPN requires the name to have become predominant in common global usage. Further, WP:ENGVAR, which WP:TIES is a component of, only applies to vocabulary, spelling, and grammar - toponyms typically come out of vocabulary but are not considered part of it. I would also note that there is no evidence here demonstrating that it is the common name even within South Africa, as single examples only tell us that the name is used, and do not tell us its prevalence in a significant majority of sources. BilledMammal (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  - "Place names are not part of vocabulary" is a scorching hot take Red Slash 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Strong Support 6 months ago, I said I would probably support this move in 6 months. After 6 months ... the argument for a move seems solid, and the arguments against a move are largely procedural. I have never been to South Africa, but the references show that recent coverage overwhelmingly uses Gqeberha. There is a political issue here - some people seem to want the name of the metropolitan area to be Nelson Mandela Bay instead. But it is clear that Gqeberha is more common than Nelson Mandela Bay. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also, we do need a 12-month moratorium regardless of the outcome of the RM. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Minor correction: no editor has opposed solely on procedural grounds, with every editor who opposed on those grounds also opposing on grounds of WP:COMMONNAME, either by providing their own systematic evidence, or implicitly or explicitly referencing the systematic evidence provided by others. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  Your first !vote (you get 2?) was purely based on the fact that the previous closer had said to wait a year and made no mention of WP:COMMONNAME. Spekkios's !vote was also purely procedural and made no reference to WP:COMMONNAME. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  That simply isn't true at all. I quite clearly made reference to the common name. --Spekkios (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Support per WP:NAMECHANGES as per previous RM.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment. I request that a summary of usage be provided. We can cherrypick sources all we like to support either position, but the main questions remain the same.

What is the proportion of Gqeberha name usage vs Port Elizabeth usage and is there any positive dynamic now compared to September 2021 (and how positive it is)? I prefer not just "most recent queries", which may display differently depending on country or probably even the search engine, but some analytical stats (number of queries for either option?) The closest thing to that is the Google Scholar comparison, but this is not ideal as scholarship takes time to publish, and the change is recent. Browser stats, query stats etc. please.
Have any major news organisations agreed on the name change and can we, as in Kyiv example or with any Ukrainian city I pointed out is the example where I'd give support for the move, say that the consensus of major news organisations is that we should use Gqeberha? I see no quotes from the manuals of style, and only a single suggestion that a major news organisation (France 24) already uses the new name.

There are already several dozen Kb of text but I don't see objective metrics yet. This has to change.

Alternatively, not that I've seen the stats for that but if it's the case that the usage is common in ZA but not elsewhere, which means that WP:COMMONNAME plausibly applies to either solution, we can try not to quarrel about the Best and Most Truthful Title®™ but instead petition to implement a frwiki solution to the problem (English, like French is a pluricentric language anyway) and show alternative spellings just below the name. For an example of how that's done, see w:fr:vergeoise (normally called cassonade almost everywhere outside metropolitan France). In this case, I'd say that let the top say "Port Elizabeth" and the bottom "Gqeberha (official name)" (please don't quarrel about which of these should be on the top). If there are stats, self-assembled or published externally - doesn't matter for me so long as the methodology is valid and doesn't have weaknesses - present them and show that there indeed has been a change in the last 6 months. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

If it's helpful, my Google search above showed 281 news results for 'Gqeberha' and 282 news results for 'Port Elizabeth' between 1st of Feburary 2021 and today. As for the results by site, the ones I looked at were BBC [1], Wapo [2], and NYT [3]. Not sure if that's helpful. --Spekkios (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

How did you control for organizations with "Port Elizabeth" in the name, results referring to events prior to the name change, results posted prior to the name change, "Port Elizabeth"'s in other contexts or countries, etc? Desertambition (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Google search results allow you to specify date and keywords, which is how I searched for results from the 1st of Feburary 2021 till today. Controlling for companies is harder but I would be extremely suprised if that affected the results much. --Spekkios (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal did the same thing above and the vast majority of their sources were outdated or not applicable. Just searching specific dates and keywords on Google is not reliable. You also need to control for Port Elizabeth's in other countries and contexts, names of organizations, companies, etc. Desertambition (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

My initial search was in Google, rather than Google News - the issue is that Google doesn't appear to respect date restrictions, while Google News does, meaning the issues from that are not applicable to Spekkios' search. It is true that searches will never be perfect, but the issues when the name is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are typically minor, and such issues typically occur on both sides in a way that often balances out - for example, this article refers to the Gqeberha Magistrates Court, not Gqeberha, while this article will be counted as a use of Gqeberha in the search Spekkios linked, but it should have been counted as a use of Port Elizabeth.

I'll also add that regardless of their issues, they are considerably better than cherrypicked examples which tell us nothing about each names relative prevalence in sources. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

They're hardly "cherrypicked" examples. They show that almost every reliable news agency in the country of South Africa has completely switched over to Gqeberha. I included a diverse range of sources from multiple news outlets published recently. Neither of your links are from 2022.

I don't think Google can be trusted with date restrictions and there are many factors that can obfuscate results and muddy the waters. Specific examples from reliable sources is precisely what the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines request. Ngrams and Google results are supposed to be used in conjunction with reliable sources, not as the sole motivating factor of an argument. Especially when there are reasonable concerns about misleading results. Desertambition (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

They show that some news agencies in South Africa have used Gqeberha at least once; I could (and have) presented a similar list in opposition to the move. I also note that several of your examples are not from news agencies, and others are from news agencies whose reliability is questionable; for example, News24 and allAfrica published stories describing a woman in Eastern Cape as being 118 years old, which if true would have made her the oldest living person in the world, but it is unlikely to be true. At some point, we need a discussion about those sources at WP:RSN.

Google search cannot be trusted with date restrictions, but Google News search can be. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I've raised this about IOL[4] and I would endorse an RSN discussion about South African sources, especially post-2020. There are serious issues with reliability and journalistic standards.Park3r (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Leaning oppose based on the evidence that shows little change in terms of relative term popularity (regardless of whether we include IOL). It simply hasn't budged much (yet), and the starting position was sort of an indictment for any attempt to change it towards the other name. I'd be considering to !vote yes had the trend been consistently and more or less quickly upward, but that's simply not the case here. And that has nothing to do with colonial preferences. On the same note, I'd have !voted opposed for Qonce as the trends aren't favourable to the new name. This might be an issue of only more well-off South Africans having access to the internet, who'd tend to use new names instead of sticking to arguably colonial ones, but that's a proxy for actual usage (why would people bother to write the long "King William's Town" name in the search engines instead of short "Qonce" if it hadn't been for its popularity? Port Elizabeth, while sounding English, is also arguably a longer name).

I don't think that we should ban any name change discussion, but we need objective stats, and guidance from the press, if any. Name changes that base on selected sources (even if 20 of them) will automatically draw my oppose. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: I think the Google Trends that Spekkios linked above addresses part of that, which shows that queries for Port Elizabeth are twenty times the number of queries for Gqeberha, and have had no movement over the past six months. Looking only at South Africa, the result is the same.

For Google Scholar results, you are right that some of the articles would have been started prior to the name change, but looking only at articles published in 2022 the result is the same; 442 results for Port Elizabeth compared to 113 results for Gqeberha. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Objective stats are overwhelmingly for the new name. News24 (South Africa's largest media site) gives, for Google news results in the past month:

24 pages of results for Gqeberha
6 for Port Elizabeth (of which large numbers are for other entities; a sports team, educational institution etc.) I have done similar comparisons for other local media in previous discussions. Other results provided here are not correctly removing historical references, other entities and the like. For the Scholar results listed above, the very first result references the name of an airport, I can also see an educational institution and others that have not been removed from the results. They are not useful for determining usage in referring to the city. Greenman (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:MPN requires global usage, and News24 has reliability issues - see discussion above.

For the Google Scholar results, while some uses of Port Elizabeth are not relevant (as are some uses of Gqeberha), the magnitude of the result in favour of Port Elizabeth is enough to ensure that does not impact the results. I also note that the first result is appropriate to include as a result for Port Elizabeth, because while it focuses on the airport, it does mention the city as Port Elizabeth in the text. For the educational institute I am not certain I am looking at the same result, but if I am that also uses "Port Elizabeth" at one point in reference to the city and not as part of the name of an educational institute. BilledMammal (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
You keep saying News24 is not a reliable source but you have not brought these concerns to WP:RSP. Fact is that News24 is a reliable news site and the largest in South Africa. If you want it to stop being used a source, it has to be deprecated. It makes no sense to dismiss perhaps the most notable news organization in the country. Desertambition (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no credible argument that News24 is not a reliable source, in particular when it comes to the name of a major city in the country of which they are the dominant media house. You can repeat the same exercise with other major media sites, such as Mail and Guardian, Daily Maverick, and will get similar results. I'm sure it's possible to cherrypick dubious statements from every major newspaper in existence, but its the overall standard that counts. Even IOL, which has fallen from being a quality media site to a situation where it's become notorious for simply making things up, at least gets mostly gets the name of the city correct. Yes, WP:MPN requires international usage, but the point is that local usage has almost exclusively moved, and international usage takes it lead from there. There are very few current articles about the city, hence it's important to exclude historical references. A good example would be the recent cricket test played at Gqeberha, which international media seem to use the new name for (BBC, ESPN AU) and as described in other comments. You state that the magnitude of results in Google Scholar are sufficient, but with no systematic removal of the false positives, the data cannot be used reliably. Much more useful is the recent news content about the city, and the evidence seems overwhelming. Greenman (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a credible argument presented above; sources that stick by their story after it has been widely discredited are not reliable. As for the Google Scholar results, a manual review finds that approximately 20% are not relevant; since 75% would need to not be relevant to result in Gqeberha being the common name (assuming, incorrectly, that all Gqeberha results are relevant) it is clear that the results strongly support "Port Elizabeth". BilledMammal (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per me at previous RM: 1,680m results for Port Elizabeth and 5.35m results for Gqeberha still implies "Port Elizabeth" is used more. It is far too soon for these site results to be more 50-50 at this point. But I do agree that the next RM should be at least 365 days after this one is closed and not moved as a result. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Same response I gave to Spekkios above: How did you control for organizations with "Port Elizabeth" in the name, results referring to events prior to the name change, results posted prior to the name change, "Port Elizabeth"'s in other contexts or countries, etc? Desertambition (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose and Close I have to agree with the first comment. It's too soon after the original !vote and not much has changed as National news still say Port Elizabeth which shows PE is still WP:COMMONNAME. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The article you linked is WATCH LIVE | Isuzu IRONMAN African Championship in Gqeberha

Doesn't seem to support your point unless I'm missing something. Desertambition (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Did you mean to write Support? The article you reference uses Gqeberha, as does the national media almost exclusively.
  - It appears to use Port Elizabeth? See WP:HEADLINES. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons given by others. I don't consider IOL to be a WP:RS anymore, along with most of the newspapers in the group[5], and the remaining sources have been known to vacillate, often for years, on name changes. I'll also note, as an aside, that we still don't have a recorded pronunciation of Gqeberha, which would made it abundantly clear why it's unlikely to ever become the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Park3r (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
How to say Gqeberha - the new Xhosa name for Port Elizabeth - BBC

VIDEO: This is how you pronounce Gqeberha, the new name for PE - IOL

Here's some good examples of how to pronounce it. It wouldn't be difficult to add the pronunciation to the article. Desertambition (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I requested it more than a year ago. [6] Park3r (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I just saw the one you posted four hours ago. Both of those articles were posted right after the name change. You really could have looked it up at some point in the past year. Two Xhosa speakers also offered to record a pronunciation under your post. They may not have done it but Wikipedia/Wikimedia is notoriously difficult to navigate. Still very possible to have someone record a pronunciation. Desertambition (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I know how to pronounce it, however we can't use the pronunciations you linked to in Wikipedia. Park3r (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Support as per previous discussion. Local media almost exclusively uses the new name, and international media increasingly so. The most cursory look at the counter-arguments given here shows many of the examples supposedly supporting retaining the old name refer to historical events. Greenman (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. I'm currently watching the second Test match between South Africa and Bangladesh at St George's Park, with all the commentators referring to Gqeberha, with match reports also doing so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Support: I see similar usage for both "Gqeberha" and "Port Elizabeth" in both domestic and international news coverage over the past year. There is a very slight edge in favor of "Gqeberha" after excluding "Port Elizabeth" usage in historical contexts (e.g. colonial history) and excluding hits of other entities containing the name "Port Elizabeth" (e.g. Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, Port Elizabeth, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Port Elizabeth TVET College, Port of Port Elizabeth).
For this calculation, I looked at the 26-27 pages of hits from the past year that each search query produced in Google News and manually discounted usage (a fair number of "Port Elizabeth" hits were for the community and terminal in New Jersey). I didn't look at academic sources because the name change is so recent (the academic publishing process is almost always at least one year long) and because so much of the corpus is for the city in past historical eras.
This article move is therefore compliant with WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:MPN, with "Gqeberha" being the ever-so-slightly more common name in recent English RS coverage. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @MarkH21: I found a slightly different result; can you give more details on your method? And did you consider whether the sources were reliable; for example, the issue above with News24? I would also note that even if we look at scholarly articles published since 2022 there is a strong preference for Port Elizabeth, even when manually removing articles that are not referring to this Port Elizabeth, or that are referring to the past. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  - I excluded a few obvious non-RSes that still show up in Google News (e.g. I remember a wiki or two showing up), but I did not explicitly exclude the WP:NEWSORGs (I do not have much specific domain knowledge about these regional news sources and none of them have consensus for unreliability at WP:RSP/WP:RSN).
    My main point about academic sources is that most academic sources published in 2021-2022 were written before the 2021 name change, since the publication process takes several months to years (stats for academic journals in all disciplines - it's even longer for academic books). Therefore, it's not very informative whether a 2021 or early 2022 academic article or book uses "Port Elizabeth". — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    - Looking at that source, it suggests that the majority published in 2022 will be from after the name change, meaning that the data is useful in determining the common name.
    In general, I see this as further evidence that this move request is too soon; we should wait another year, when there will be clearer evidence either to move the article, or, as is currently indicated, to keep it at its current title. BilledMammal (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Support: it is increasingly common to referred to Port Elizabeth as Gqeberha. I have seen it increasingly commonly referred to as such in the media and in conversations with other South Africans. I was in the city a few months ago and most of the people I spoke to there use the two names interchangeably. This, in addition to the official name change, reinforces my opinion that the article should be moved.--Discott (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Strong Support: Not only this city, but the following cities/countries also need to be moved:

Cape Verde → Cabo Verde

Czech Republic → Czechia

East Timor → Timor-Leste

Ivory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire

Macau → Macao

I'm also keeping a close eye on:

Turkey → Türkiye

2001:8003:9008:1301:A88B:2633:A2C4:EB02 (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I realize a lot of the support comments are very close to votes, but this comment is worth pointing out as a particularly blatant example. BilledMammal (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly a blatant example of someone chipping in with zero knowledge of/interest in the guidelines on basing place names on English language common usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Cabo Verde" before and looking at that article it is the Portuguese equivalent, not English. I've opposed the proposal of moving Ivory Coast to Côte d'Ivoire two months ago based on the English equivalent usage on other country names (Wales, Spain, Germany instead of Cymru, España and Deutschland respectively (though I did not include Germany in that RM on Talk:Ivory Coast). I remember playing a game where you think of nine things from different categories beginning with 'D', including a country, where someone said "Deutschland" but that was rejected because that's not the English equivalent. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook changed Cape Verde to Cabo Verde long time ago. 2001:8003:9008:1301:F813:952F:9746:1731 (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose nobody calls it that but the government. Here in Australia, I can guarantee that nobody will know where Gqeberha is (also when I typed "Gqeberha" my iPad has put a red underline under it, so Apple doesn't recognise it yet). However, people know where Port Elizabeth is (mostly because it's known for tourism and its shark attacks among other things). And per what @Discott: said above, it would be stupid to move pages to their endonyms instead of their English exonyms (it would be like if the French Wikipedia moved the page Australie to Australia even though that's the French name). Cabo Verde is Portuguese for Cape Verde, Czechia is alternate name for the Czech Republic (however most people, including myself, use the term "Czech Republic"), Timor-Leste is Portuguese for East Timor (this name also used to be used in English but isn't anymore), Côte d'Ivoire is French for Ivory Coast, Macao is Portuguese for Macau and Türkiye is Turkish for Turkey (I have never seen "Türkiye" used in English except when referring to the Turkish name). I suggest that this proposal be closed ASAP. Sikova na Ositerelia (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
~~Also when I did a Google search for Port Elizabeth I got 1,530,000,000 results, compared to only 6,230,000 for Gqeberha. Sikova na Ositerelia (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)~~sock of banned user

This is not a helpful addition. "Nobody" is purely anecdotal and obviously inaccurate as the briefest of Google searches of Australian media will show. And as has been pointed out multiple times above, your Google search would have included numerous references to historical name, as well as multiple entries of the "Gqeberha, previously Port Elizabeth" type. What's important is recent usage. Locally usage has moved almost exclusively the new name, while international usage is rapidly following. Greenman (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes good point.

I didn't think of the basis that both those names are used in multiple results when I used the same search myself on both requested moves so I won't be doing that again if a similar requested move takes place on other locations/countries around the world. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You have no right to represent my country. Anyway, since you are banned for WP:SOCK, your vote won't count.

By the way, Macao is actually the English name whereas Macau is the Portuguese name. 2001:8003:9008:1301:F813:952F:9746:1731 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Support as per earlier comments showing widespread usage in local, national, and international media. Combined with the official name change I believe this is grounds for the move. Aquaticonions (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Support NAMECHANGE is clear: a new official name in regular usage since the name change, which is clearly the case here, would override an old COMMONNAME, especially if local sources are using it robustly. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Support per nom, and for reasons listed by User:SportingFlyer, User:MarkH21, User:Aquaticonions, and User:Red Slash above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
~~Oppose per above comments. The common name in English is the current title.~~ Rreagan007 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Already !voted above at 19:07 on 28 March 2022 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 00:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Propose this be closed (I already voted oppose above). Nominator has been blocked again.[7] There isn't a consensus. It's also interesting that these name change discussions take away a lot of oxygen from these topics: the fact that the city is going to immenently run out of water is almost certainly more important than a name change. Park3r (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I actually think there is a consensus to move here, but yes it should be formally closed. The nom being blocked on unrelated grounds isnt relevant here though. nableezy - 12:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There still isn't consistent use of the new name. [8][9] Anyone who has followed renaming sagas in South Africa knows that the media switch back and forth over a period of years, and often just revert to the original name of the place. There's an element of pandering initially, followed by a realisation that ordinary people don't actually use the new name, and then a reversion to the old name. Coupled with the collapse of media circulation and general journalistic credibility, there needs to be a serious evaluation of WP:RS for South African sources, which has been raised elswhere in this discussion. Wikipedia shouldn't be leading the way in promoting new names unless there is a clear and durable consensus that a name is the WP:COMMONNAME, otherwise we risk WP:CIRCULAR references. Regardless, I agree this proposal needs to close.Park3r (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat related grounds. If they weren't blocked, they would have been topic banned by community consensus from RM's and other areas. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Both names are in use. The new name is not predominant. In a Google News search limited to the last year: "Port Elizabeth" 308, Gqeberha 295. People have difficulty knowing how to spell the new name: Gqberha 56. The exact numbers will vary from day to day. WP:NAMECHANGES says that we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. It does not say that we should give zero weight to sources written before the name changed. "Port Elizabeth" is vastly more common than "Gqeberha" in searches when you include things written both before and after the name changed.^{"Port Elizabeth","Gqeberha"}-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"We shouldn't title this article X because sometimes people misspell it" is not a compelling argument, to put it bluntly. In fact, the correct + this one incorrect spelling cleanly beat out the old name in the sources you yourself have provide. Red Slash 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
There is considerable overlap between the two searches; a search "Gqeberha" OR "Gqberha" returns 299 results. And I think it is a reasonable argument, as it suggests that the name is so rare in general use that people haven't been able to learn how to spell it yet, which adds to the Google Trends evidence provided previously telling us the same thing. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Your search includes results for Port Elizabeth, New Jersey as well as articles that use both names. "Port Elizabeth" -"Gqeberha" -"New Jersey" gives 293 results, and "Gqeberha" OR "Gqberha" -"Port Elizabeth" returns 300. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Support per the arguments already made further up - it seems as though there are clearly enough sources to demonstrate that usage has shifted to the new name. Misspellings shouldn't be relevant, given there are many places where that's an issue with the name (we don't use a different name for Rio de Janeiro just because people can't spell Janeiro Turnagra (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Support per WP:NAMECHANGES giving weight to sources after the change, which seem to have largely moved to the new name. I was also swayed by the !vote of Paine Ellsworth, who closed the previous move and imposed the quasi-moritorium, but now supports the move and opposes shutting down the discussion based on arbitrary deadlines. The arguments that name changes in South Africa often don't stick carries little weight with me, as if the pendulum swings back the other way, we can always move the article back. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Replace base name use with Port Elizabeth (disambiguation) whatever happens. Either this is Port Elizabeth, South Africa or Gqeberha -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Support. I was reading through this discussion with an eye toward closing it, but I'm !voting instead because neither side has mustered much solid quantitative evidence in support of its arguments. Good-faith comments like "In a Google News search limited to the last year: "Port Elizabeth" 308, Gqeberha 295" have a serious flaw: Google will only ever return roughly 300 search results, even if the actual number is far higher. Since each of these names has been used many more than 300 times in the past year, the numbers that Google is producing are basically meaningless.
One solution to this problem is to search for results from over a more limited time period, ensuring that the maximum isn't reached. I searched for Google News results containing the terms "Port Elizabeth" and "Gqeberha" from over the past week. There are roughly 159 results that use "Gqeberha", most of which appear to be from reliable African news outlets. (There are 23 from News24 and 5 that aren't in English; feel free to discount them for sake of argument.). There are roughly 48 results that use "Port Elizabeth", of which 4 refer to the New Jersey city, 15 are not in English, 1 (The Sun) is deprecated as unreliable, 6 are in other titles (University of Port Elizabeth, etc.), and 4 are results of the form "Gqeberha (formerly known as Port Elizabeth)" or similar, which indicate that the sources are using the new name. The adjusted totals are 131 for Gqeberha and 18 for Port Elizabeth, which is a strong sign that, at least at the moment, "reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name" for purposes of WP:NAMECHANGES. To ensure that these results weren't anomalous, I repeated this test for the first week of May and the third week of May; although my survey was a bit more cursory, Gqeberha appeared to retain its lead both times. These results reflect common global usage; although most sources are South African (they're the ones who write about this city the most, obviously), some reputable international sources have also favored Gqeberha over the past month, e.g. Bloomberg (2 vs. 0), The New York Times (1 vs. 0), and The Hindu (2 vs. 0). I really have no horse in this race (I promise!) and would be happy to oppose the move if that's what sources called for, but in my view the numbers speak for themselves: although sources may have previously favored Port Elizabeth, they've now shifted fairly decisively toward Gqeberha. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ: The limit is actually 1000, not 300; see WP:HITS. The commenters on that question you linked were generally right - the number at the top is an estimate - but as long as the total number is less than 1000 you can find it out by scrolling to the last page. I note that similar issues to what you raised also occur with the Gqeberha results; some use the Gqeberha in a name, such as "Gqeberha High Court", others use "Port Elizabeth (now Gqeberha)", others are unsuitable sources such as Shell. I also note that even when we considering the year-long result we need to consider WP:WIAN, which tells us Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias in some, such as for nationalistic, religious or political reasons. BilledMammal (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to tell that limit is in fact not 1000: simply search for a prominent politician of your choice and see how many results come up. "Donald Trump" and "Joe Biden" in Google News both only get 239 results each (fewer than Gqeberha!), for instance, despite the fact that they're two of the most widely reported-on figures in the world. Moreover, if Port Elizabeth and Gqeberha got 48 and 159 results, respectively, in the last week alone, it's obvious that they would have gotten more than 300 results in the last year but for Google's limit. If you can find any search queries that yield anything approaching 1000 results, let me know and I'll stand corrected. I agree that some proportion of the results for Gqeberha may be unsuitable, but impeaching a handful of the results isn't enough when one title leads by an overwhelming margin, as you noted above in your comment of 20:00 on 15 April 2022. And even if we accept that there may be "nationalistic, religious or political" bias in the South African sources (which seems like a stretch to me, but I'll concede the point for sake of argument), WP:WIAN advises looking at "major authoritative English-language newspapers...or wire services" instead, which I did above by citing the NYT, Bloomberg, etc. A few more examples from the last year: CNN uses Gqeberha and not Port Elizabeth; the Associated Press and the BBC most commonly use "Gqeberha (formerly Port Elizabeth)", and the Los Angeles Times is partial to Gqeberha over Port Elizabeth. These are the sort of "major global sources" that WP:WIAN smiles upon. By the way, if we're focusing on WP:NCGN, I think it's pretty clear that Port Elizabeth isn't the "widely accepted English name, in a modern context" anymore if large numbers of authoritative sources don't accept it, which means that we're supposed to use the "modern official name" (Gqeberha) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines point #1. But in any event, I stand by my claim that Gqeberha is now sufficiently predominant in modern global usage to make it the appropriate article title. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Support per reasons articulated by nominator and various other users (User:Paine_Ellsworth, User:Turnagra, and many others) above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm sure usage is slowly shifting, but no evidence has been presented showing Gqeberha to be the new name, instead usage evidence still shows Port Elizabeth to dominate and as such it remains the common name in English. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shift in international news usage since March 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm aware that there is a move moratorium until 28 March 2023 unless there is very strong evidence of a major shift compared with the situation now and I also tire of repeated discussions, so please excuse this beating of a well-beaten horse. However, with the more frequent coverage of the city in international RSes, it does appear that international news usage has actually shifted in one direction.

Note: I have taken care to exclude results that refer only to Port Elizabeth, New Jersey (and I did not come across Port Elizabeth, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines nor Port of Port Elizabeth in recent articles).

"Gqeberha" without "Port Elizabeth" since March 2022

Since March 2022, these are the only times that the above sources have mentioned "Port Elizabeth":

in "Gqeberha, formerly Port Elizabeth"
- Reuters: 1 2
- The New York Times: 1
in historical context
- Deutsche Welle 1: "towns with historic names like Port Elizabeth are being rebranded — in this case as Gqeberha"
- Associated Press 1: "was born on Oct. 19, 1946, in Port Elizabeth"

"Port Elizabeth" without "Gqeberha" since March 2022

I have only found one major international news article in this category:

Financial Times: 1

This is an semi-exhaustive list of news articles from green WP:RSP listed sources since March 2022. It is not completely exhaustive and I can add more above as they are found.

I thought that this would be worth bringing up, at least preliminarily. Of course, we should not start an RM unless there is an early consensus to do so. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru I asked at the time that you reconsider the moratorium, and I ask again that you lift it, as I dont think it is either correct in process or in substance. Absent discretionary sanctions being available, I still do not get under what authority a ban on discussion can be imposed. And given the evidence above I find it also incorrect in substance, in that it is forcing people to go through incredibly pointless exercises to start an RM. Can you please lift the moratorium? nableezy - 20:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi all. Given that solid evidence has been presented by MarkH21 above that usage has indeed shifted, and it's also been five months since the last RM, I'm happy to lift the moratorium at this point and anyone is free to start an RM at any time. The purpose of the original moratorium, as I explained at the time to Nableezy and per time-honoured WP convention, was to prevent repeated bludgeoning-style RMs rehashing the same arguments which failed to find consensus last time. When circumstances change, as they appear to have done here, we revisit that decision. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said then, that only makes sense when there is a consensus, in either direction, not when there is no consensus. But thank you for lifting it now. nableezy - 15:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe it's time for that RM then? — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments8 people in discussion

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 22 December 2022. The result of the move review was endorsed.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus, the requested title is the new common name. Requesting the removal of edit/move protection to faciliate the move with MelanieN as the blocking admin. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Port Elizabeth → Gqeberha – We had a no consensus requested move in March 2022. Amakuru has given the go-ahead in this discussion based on the existing evidence. With the more frequent coverage of the city in international RSes, it does appear that international news usage has clearly shifted towards "Gqeberha" over "Port Elizabeth".

"Gqeberha" without "Port Elizabeth" since March 2022

Since March 2022, these are the only times that the above sources have mentioned "Port Elizabeth":

in "Gqeberha, formerly Port Elizabeth"
- Reuters: 1 2
- The New York Times: 1
in historical context
- Deutsche Welle 1: "towns with historic names like Port Elizabeth are being rebranded — in this case as Gqeberha"
- Associated Press 1: "was born on Oct. 19, 1946, in Port Elizabeth"

"Port Elizabeth" without "Gqeberha" since March 2022

I have only found one major international news article in this category:

Financial Times: 1

Note: I have taken care to exclude results that only refer to Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, Port Elizabeth, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, or to institutions in Port Elizabeth / Gqeberha that have not changed their name (e.g. Port of Port Elizabeth, Alliance Française of Port Elizabeth, etc.).

I am happy to update the list above if more established reliable sources (e.g. green listings at WP:RSP) are found in either category. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: the RM moratorium was lifted here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Support. As noted, I lifted my previous moratorium on this based on the evidence presented. And since the evidence presented above seems quite persuasive, I'm happy to support this request. Per Kyiv, Myanmar, Eswatini etc, I think this is a name change which has taken hold in reliable sources and the time has come for us to switch. — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Support: As mentioned in previous discussions, South African media also almost exclusively uses the new name. Greenman (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Support – Enough RS have adopted Gqeberha, and stopped using Port Elizabeth, that I think it's safe to say that the WP:COMMONNAME has changed. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Support - the shift had already occured sufficiently in the past move request, now it has shifted so dramatically that there is no doubt on the correct title of this article, and its Gqeberha. nableezy - 22:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Support for all the reasons listed six months ago. WP:TIES mandated this move a year ago, it mandated it six months ago, and it still mandates it today. Red Slash 17:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post closing comment I would like to note that the move protection request was lifted and above discussion was held without informing prior participants. I personally was not monitoring the discussion because of the moratorium. Park3r (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Water supply

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article has two sections about water:

Hydrology (a subheading of "Geography")
Water sources (the only subheading of "Municipal")

I think it would be better if the municipal section were deleted, and its only content the water sources section were put in the hydrology section, which already has some content on the same subject.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"origanlly" vs "or"

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What evidence is there that city continues to be known by PE? nableezy - 04:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Changed back as no evidence offered for the idea that it is still commonly known as PE. nableezy - 15:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"formerly" is likely better. Nardog (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Sound file request

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Can we please complement the pronunciation guide for the name Gqeberha with an audio file? I would not be surprised if there is a more precise variety used by Xhosa speakers and an approximation used locally by English and Africaans speakers, and we need to hear both, because there are phonemes here that most of us who are unfamiliar with African languages cannot deduce from the IPA. Doric Loon (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I've officially decided it's now "guhh KEY burr haw". If I'm wrong, don't remove it; correct the article. Red Slash 04:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

This has got to be a joke. We already have a Xhosa transcription, and it's not difficult to hear it on the web. {{Respell}} can, as the template documentation says, only be used for English along with {{IPAc-en}} and adhering to the key it links to. Since the word includes a click consonant, it cannot be faithfully borrowed using the sounds of English. As I said here before, I assume it would be /ɡəˈbeɪhə/ or /ɡəˈbɛərhə/, but we just have to wait for an anglicization to emerge, and to do otherwise would be OR. Nardog (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Nardog, that's helpful. (Maybe I missed discussion further up.) There is no way the international community is going to adopt the click, and that's fine, because names of significant places are regularly adapted into different languages. So an Anglicized pronunciation should be in the article together with the click pronunciation. I would be very surprised if an Anglicized pronunciation has not yet emerged, but finding a reliable source may be a problem at this stage. As for the sound files, yes I did find resources on the web, but that's no excuse for not trying to be user-friendly here. Is there really nobody from Gqeberha who is working here and can make an authentic sound file? Doric Loon (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As for the sound files, yes I did find resources on the web, but that's no excuse for not trying to be user-friendly here. That's not what I meant. I was only reacting to Red Slash's introduction of the bogus respelling into the article. An audio demonstration of the Xhosa pronunciation under a compatible license would indeed be nice. Nardog (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Well, it may take a little time to get the sources, but I think we should manage to get that. I wonder if a request to the town council might bring something? Doric Loon (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

My anecdotal observation is that most English-speaking South Africans, even those who cannot pronounce the click consonant, can pronounce /xə/ - what I have heard most commonly (though I am in Cape Town rather than Gqeberha) is something like /kɛˈbɛərxə/ or /ɡɛˈbɛərxə/. htonl (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

/kɛˈbɛərxə/ is probably as close as you can get. In South African English this translates to /keˈbeːχə/, which is closer to the original than /kɛˈbɛːxə ~ kɛˈbɛːkə/ I'd expect from an RP speaker. From a General American speaker, the best you can expect is probably /kɛˈbeɪkə/ or something like that (more realistically: /kɛˈbɛrkə/, based on spelling). Or /kɛˈbeɪhɑː/, with a better approximation for /x/ and a strong (unreduced) final syllable.

(Or all of the above but with an initial /ɡ/). Sol505000 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I continue to insist that somewhere, someone who speaks English can describe the sound of the name in English. Guys, if you have a guess, use it. Red Slash 16:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Of course they can. And WP:NOR prohibits them from adding such a description in the article. Nardog (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

it’s <hard palate roof click>WEH-BEH-<guttural GHA>. But most SA English speaking people would just call it “PE” [10] Park3r (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm a South African English first-language speaker. I think can pronounce it quite well, presumably because I was fascinated by click consonants from a young age. However, it's a sad testament to the low participation of South African editors on Wikipedia that a recording of a native pronunciation hasn't been added yet. I also would guess that most local English speakers who can't pronounce the name perfectly (and English-speaking people from Durban even tend to struggle with guttural sounds, not just clicks) wouldn't dare try to anglicise the name for fear of being ridiculed, and would colloquially call the place "PE" or "Nelson Mandela Bay" when trying to be politically sensitive. UPDATE: this is an example of the way a South African English speaker would react when trying to say the name: [11] He tries to start with a swallowed “g”, then quickly seems to realise he can’t say it, and just says ”Port “Elizabeth”Park3r (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment: It seems clear the choice of name was foolhardy at best given the unpronounceability unless one is already familiar with the phonetics of the Xhosa language and that most uses in print are out of a desire to avoid offending the South African government rather than genuine acceptance of their choice of name. The top-down nature of settlement renaming in South Africa is troubling at best. In other parts of the world renaming is usually community-driven rather than imposed by central government (such as the changing of Bombay to Mumbai at the request of Marathi nationalists), but in South Africa local elected officials often object to the names they are forced to adopt.

The best solution for contentious name changes in South Africa is probably to stick with the traditional name in the article title and main body of text and merely noting that the settlement is "officially known as..." in the lede. 89.240.204.149 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that the local council was bypassed and its objections ignored. Furthermore the consultation was held in the midst of Covid lockdowns. There's also a source that shows that the name isn't used locally. Unfortunately, there was a WP:MORATORIUM on the move that was lifted, and none of the previous move objectors were notified. I asked for a move review, but was not successful in that. This is an even more extreme case of Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire, which has at least got an English approximation, while any attempt to Anglicise Gqeberha will be met with ridicule or worse. There's also a limited number of editors who know/understand South Africa, so there isn't going to be much prospect of getting the move reverted. The current name doesn't meet WP:CRITERIA, but anyway, bigger fish to fry (for now) than a mistitled and unpronounceable article name... Park3r (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand all that, just wanted to throw my penny's worth into the ring. 89.240.204.149 (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)