Talk:Dutch Cape Colony

population numbers
I was cleaning up the infobox and found some numbers for population that don't seem to make sense. The 1797 number has a source. The 1800 number does not and can't be right when compared with the 1797 number, but it could include just a subset of people. Someone else can try to sort this out or just remove it as unsourced. MB 00:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The 1800 number seems to be for the District of the Cape, which was one of the four subdivisions of the Cape Colony (see 1797 census). I'll delete the 1800 number. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Invasion of St Helena in 1672.
It seems pretty likely that the invasion by the Dutch of St Helena [Saint Helena] in 1672 was a VoC project. This could perhaps be mentioned here? John Turner, Burgh House (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Coat of arms
The "Coat of arms" link goes to the page about the British Cape Colony's coat of arms. Needs to be corrected. 2600:1702:6D0:5160:8914:76F4:A136:C93C (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit Dispute
The following was copied from User talk:Vif12vf.

START

I'm afraid you need to explain your continued reversion of legitimate edits to the namesake article. I've clearly indicated with my edit summary that your unexplained reversion were construed as malicious. Furthermore, you've made no attempt to verify the nature of my contributions and yet you accuse me of disruptive editing; I suggest that you first make an effort to ascertain situations such as these before throwing about blocking threats as you have with me. In any event, I have a stronger case for having you blocked since I have made an actual attempt prior to your threat, to communicate and you've failed to engage. I request that you either justify or your reversions or negotiate a middle ground on the article's talk page, otherwise I will have no choice but to involve an administrator/arbitrator. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 * Literally every one of your edits to that article are either unsourced, unhelpful or both. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 * That is not what vandalism is, which is what you've accused me of, or indeed the purpose that the reversion function is intended for. What is so contentious or unbelievable about my contribution that should give you cause resort to such a drastic response? Mind you, it took me hours to ensure that both the content and the intended use of the infobox was accurate, and to remove remove empty fields. Meaning, it wasn't an act of impulse. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 * I take it that you're not going to make meaningful attempt to explain yourself beyond this vague and unconstructive criticism? If that is the case, I will have no choice but to request assistance via the WP:DRN. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 * Not only is that page for more serious disputes, but since you yourself have broken the 3-revert rule, you are unlikelly to be taken seriously. It is quite obvious that you have done no research on how things are done on wikipedia. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 * I have actually not broken the 3RR since I've only reverted 3 times and also not within a 24 hour period. There is always the edit waring notice board as an alternative to the NRN. I could say the same about you since you refuse to follow due process around disagreement around non-malicious edits. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

END 103.141.102.6 (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Based on the thread above, for any consideration of the IP's edits to go further, they need to provide reliable sources to support their edits. —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've gathered that much, but for which one(s) of my proposed edits? Blanket referencing is not typical for this infobox and some edits' assertions are even self-evident, like the picture at right of the flag is clearly does not conform to what defines a coat of arms, but does with a monogram/logo. According the philosophy and OM of WP, personal incredulity does not trump consensus building, the WP:CITENEED or other general due process. So, I'll need more information. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you need to propose an edit and see if there is consensus, then. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well. I'll list my infobox edits below for discussion.
 * Qualifying the 'conventional long name' with the adjective "Dutch" to distinguish from the later British Cape Colony.
 * Simplifying the "status" to reflect it's strictly intended purpose as per Template:Infobox country, and to remove redundancy (c.f notable events).
 * Replacing the 'era' to a more relevant "Dutch Republic/Napoleonic Wars".
 * Replacing the 'empire' with "Netherlands" to be more consistent with style.
 * Adding the 'national anthem's of "(none official)" and "Het Wilhelmus (popular)".
 * Adding the 'common language of "French".
 * Replacing the 'religion's of native beliefs with "Fetishism" and "Shamanism".
 * Adding 'symbol type' and article of "Monogram".
 * Adding 'government type' of "Corporatocracy".
 * Performing a general clean up, including removal of white space, and unused fields, and fixing style and wording.
 * 103.141.102.6 (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As you can infer even more clearly now than from the copied conversation, there is zero interest over the last three days from user in question, to legitimately engage in constructive discussion. All they have to offer are ad hominem and red herring arguments to retain the status quo. What is the next step? 101.98.249.78 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would ping the other party(ies) to ask for replies here, but I do not see any reliable sources mentioned above. Without them, I see no need to push this discussion further. —C.Fred (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just notified them of this discussion. However, I thought we've addressed the matter of reliable sources in the above thread, specifically, that many of these values are subjective and not normally cited and if I were to cite, then I will need to know which edits. Perhaps, I should ask additional assistance from the relevant project administrators. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention of reliable sources in the thread above. And you have the attention of an administrator, who has been trying to guide you on track here. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to sources when using 'referencing' at 06:15, 9 October 2022. Reliable or otherwise, I stand by the point I made then. Yes, I do have your attention, but not your understanding of the nuances around this particular infobox template it seems, and it might expedite progress to have a second pair of eyes. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that I'm participating in this matter as an administrator, I'm not making any rulings related to content. That's up to editors to do by reaching a consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For which I am grateful, however I not keen to waste my time with frivolous citation of statemnets such as the sky is blue. I refer to WP:BLUE for three reasons:
 * Firstly, not everything inherently requires an inline citation for an article to be raised from a Start quality status.
 * Secondly, the user hasn't described the edits as either false or misleading, so the edits aren't definitively likely to be challenged.
 * Thirdly, the user hasn't explained their position in any detail, which supported by their overall attitude, leads me to conclude that it is of a didactic nature. That, and the user appears to have a habit of engaging in disruptive editing in a didactic manner as per more recent additions to their talk page.
 * I recognise that BLUE can't be relied on to resolve issues such as these, which is why I suggest a second opinion, so that I can find out which of these actually require citation, if any. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you require assistance in writing a request for a third opinion? —C.Fred (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP:RFC would be more appropriate, since the introduction in WP:3O states that observance of good faith and civility during the discussion is a requisite for a successful outcome. I would have to publicise it at one or two of the WikiProjects to draw the right attention. I would appreciate assistance with that creating a RFC, if you agree with that. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)