Talk:Makhanda, South Africa

This article has previously been nominated to be moved.

Discussions:

Grahamstown → Makhanda, Eastern Cape, Moved, 3 April 2019, Talk:Makhanda, South_Africa/Archive 1#Requested move 3 April 2019
Makhanda, Eastern Cape → Grahamstown, No consensus, disambiguation changed to "South Africa", 14 January 2022, Talk:Makhanda, South_Africa#Requested move 14 January 2022

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Egazini, Battle of Grahamstown[edit]

This section requires references as it is very one sided 10:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment about 'formerly' vs. 'also'[edit]

Should the first sentence say:

A: Makhanda, formerly known as Grahamstown...
B: Makhanda, also known as Grahamstown...

Desertambition (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Position: I support A because I do not believe "formerly" implies a name is never used, quite the opposite. I believe "also" indicates a short form name or nickname ie. "America" or "Britain". Saying "formerly" effectively communicates that the name was changed in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B, "also". Grahamstown is still in use, as can be seen in this recent article, which means "formerly" would mislead readers. It is also consistent with articles like Mumbai. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot) B. "Formerly" is really for names that were used so long ago that everybody has forgotten them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
C - Makhanda, also known as Grahamstown (the official name until 2018), is clearest and consistent with other cities. SportingFlyer T·C 15:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support this option; Mumbai's lead sentence does it that way. Some1 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B or C. "Formerly" suggests something along the lines of New Amsterdam, Constantinople, Edo, Lutetia, or Jorvik. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
C seems best to me: it clearly indicates the status of the two names without incorrectly implying that "Grahamstown" is no longer used. Second choice: B. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of the already established options: C, it does seem like the best way to communicate the name change is to just say that the name was changed. I would suggest D referring to the article on Ho Chi Minh City. "Formerly (and still commonly) known as Saigon" This to me seems like the best option to concisely communicate the situation. Winniec306 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C Seems reasonable and consice. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article have been moved?[edit]

I'm not going to propose a move back to Grahamstown at this stage, but I feel like the move gave undue weight to the official name, and doesn't reflect the WP:COMMONNAME.It takes a while to see if new names "take" and South African sources flip-flop on name changes for years, often going back to the "old" name eventually. 2018 seems very recent for a major town renaming to have taken hold. Park3r (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Grahamstown is still the WP:COMMONNAME, but the most recent discussion was just three months ago (closed as "no consensus"), so I think a new request would be too soon. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original move discussion in 2019 was poorly attended, and I missed the last one. Given the scant participation, and failure to account for the fact that many South African "reliable sources" are no longer particularly reliable, and the risk of WP:CIRCULAR just making it harder, I would support a new move request back to Grahamstown. Although this has no real weight, I doubt that many South Africans even know the new name. It's not Wikipedia's job to promote official names, but to stick to WP:COMMONNAME. Park3r (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't tell us whether they know the name, but Google Trends tells us that they don't use it, nor does most of the rest of the world.

I think it would be appropriate to hold a new request in a few months, given the last result was "no consensus". BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]