Talk:Eswatini/Archive 2

Requested move 19 April 2018

 * A second move was proposed at the following section: 


 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: clearly, this discussion will not result in a consensus to move the page as proposed at this time. Wikipedia does not necessarily use official titles (WP:OFFICIAL). If reliable sources begin to use "eSwatini" and there is a clear shift in common usage (WP:COMMONNAME), it may be worth revisiting this, but only after those shifts take place. Dekimasu よ! 10:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Swaziland → eSwatini – Swaziland has changed their name to eSwatini. As a result of this name change, the article on the country should be changed to eSwatini with a redirect from Swaziland. - Emil Sayahi (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this name change recognized by other nations?-- Sıgehelmus  (Talk) ω 16:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - The King of Swaziland is an absolute monarch, this decision has been speculated for some time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.93.5 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Claims that the king determines the Wikipedia title requires several violations of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTHESIS to get there: first, an unsubstantiated claim that, because the country is an absolute monarchy, that there's no further legal process to promulgating acts in that country; second, that because an official announcement says so, that anyone outside of Swaziland, or even anyone inside Swaziland that isn't under pressure, is going to use it; and third, a totally imagined theory that Wikipedia is based on wishes or future (even allegedly-imminent) common use rather than current common use. --Closeapple (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Until we are sure that this name is internationally recognized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not active enough to vote, but international recognition of a name shouldn't really be a reason to oppose. A country's name is more-or-less an internal matter, and even in cases such as Republic of Macedonia, where there are disputes, Wikipedia's used the self-declared name. Mnmazur (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME; similar situation arose with the Czech Republic/Czechia recently &rArr; Chris0282 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with Knowledgekid87. Name still needs to be accepted by the community and at this stage we're unsure how the English language name for the country will reflect this, "Deutschland" gets called "Germany" for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypherzero0 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unlike Germany, Swaziland/eSwati has English as one of its official languages. This comparison cripples. Steinbach (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Abstain - I believe it is prudent to note that Swaziland is an absolute monarchy (diarchy, eh) so the King *is* the State to an extent. I see both perspectives having weight and currently the situation is murky. I would like to see international reactions to this news.-- Sıgehelmus  (Talk) ω 17:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above & COMMONNAME, Might get picked up internationally as eSwatini but for now atleast it should remain at Swaziland. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per COMMONNAME. New names don't necessarily catch on (e.g. Czechia). Number   5  7  17:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This is not too dissimilar from the cases with Kiev ("Kyiv") and Czech Republic ("Czechia"). S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Abstain: On the one hand, I feel Wikipedia should use common/vernacular English names when they are not confusing or inherently offensive. That would mean "Swaziland". On the other hand, this is not what the English Wikipedia usually does. We have Czech Republic, Belarus, and Côte d'Ivoire rather than Czechia, Belorussia, and Ivory Coast. That's a very strong case for "eSwatini". In case of doubt: don't change. Let's monitor closely how its usage will evolve and then vote again in a year or so. Steinbach (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we actually use "Ivory Coast" as the page name, and not "Côte d'Ivoire", but I agree with your point. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was Côte d'Ivoire when I last checked. :) Steinbach (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain/Oppose for now per reasons listed above by Steinbach and others. Let's come back to this in around a year. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. If eSwatini becomes commonly accepted in English language media then we should change the name then. In the meantime the mention in the opening paragraph and the redirect from eSwatini are sufficient. DM Andy (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Michael (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and also WP:NOTNEWS. Wait to see other countries and official entities recognize this name in English before moving. Oren0 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Abstain and wait to see what happens in common English usage, as per e.g. Burma and Myanmar. Dreigorich (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONAME. It might end up being another case of czechia, where the "official name" is never widely used. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 20:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until International consensus is reached. It's too early yet. Zerbey (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - with qualifications. The example most commonly cited here is Czechia, which has never caught on as the name of the Czech Republic, but more germane examples are Burkina Faso and Myanmar, which were unilaterally-imposed name changes for Upper Volta and Burma. These countries' names were changed more or less immediately in the popular press. The Czech Republic might be a bit different because as a member of the European Union and NATO, it might be more familiar to a broader swath of English speakers, and hence the name might have more inertia. It could well be appropriate to keep the old name for a short period, but it certainly should be reviewed much, much sooner than a year. Illexsquid (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Wikipedia did not adopt Myanmar until August 2015, more than 26 years after the name change was officially announced. Kahastok talk 21:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems a compelling reason for Wikipedia to avoid being behind the curve this time :-0 Stub Mandrel (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose until and unless it can be demonstrated that the new name is also the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Kahastok talk 21:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and also, strongly agree with Illexsquid, please sooner than a year. WP is a living resource, in contrast to old school encyclopedia books. Also, the former(current) name is the colonial name, and if the country is changing it to the pre-colonial name, the change should be respected. Also, waiting for adoption among (essentially)colonial media outlets seems like a standard prone to bias. alisonjo2786 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It seems no-one has gone beyond the news reports and actually visited the government website and read the king's speech. IMHO countries have a right to have a name in their language rather than an English one. Come to think of it when will the Wales page on wikipedia become a redirect to Cymru rather than the other way around? Stub Mandrel (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly went to the website: You're talking about the one that says "the Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland" right across the top, right? Where is the speech? --Closeapple (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:WIAN, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:RECENTISM. Even the jump-the-gun intro admits to "commonly and formerly known as Swaziland".  Not even the website of the Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland uses eSwatini (as of 2018-04-19).  The king's announcement notwithstanding, I've seen absolutely no source other than the king himself, not even its own government, that uses "eSwatini" as the habitual name for this place.  Even yesterday's news sources mention that the king has been using "eSwatini" for a while now and it didn't catch on yet. --Closeapple (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 22:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral I can see another "Cote d'Ivoire" situation happening here. Yes, COMMONNAME is important, yet also is accuracy, and Wikipedia would not be accurate if carrying on the Anglo-centric naming of this article. HOWEVER I understand the importance of COMMONNAME for exactly these circumstances. Maybe the lede could be rewritten so the "new" name is the first emboldened term? doktorb wordsdeeds 22:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is way too soon to be having this discussion. Per WP:RECENTISM, we should not react so drastically to breaking news or recent events. We should wait to see how the news sources, nations, and international organizations are addressing this, per WP:COMMONNAME. Although Swaziland is still in common usage today (heck, even http://www.gov.sz/ still uses "Swaziland"), that could change in 7 days when this discussion is supposed to end. Therefore, I would not be comfortable with making a decision at this time. Oppose for now, but reconsider after an appropriate period of time has passed. Edge3 (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I guess it's okay to hold off until the spelling is standardized, presumably not to start with a lowercase e. However, if that is what Swazis, or even just the king wants, so be it. Mirza Ahmed (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until (and unless!) eSwatini becomes common usage in English, it remains Swaziland. — D. Wo. 23:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * weak oppose for now Citing the precedence of WP's Burma to Myanmar move it should happen at some point but wait for UN/AU recognition (Swaziland can always be forwarded).Lihaas (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support for reasons already stated by Stub Mandrel, Alisonjo2786 and Illexsquid. Rariteh (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. At this point we don't have any examples of reliable sources using "eSwatini" in articles not about the name change, let alone any evidence that common usage has changed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia articles constantly change to become more up to date, eSwati is the up to date name for the country formerly known as Swaziland. Bobbbcat (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The common theme for opposition here seems to be WP:COMMONNAME, which I think is a stunningly unsuitable policy to enforce when it comes to the official names of countries. It is not up to Wikipedia or "reliable sources" (what does this even mean? Surely the government of a nation should be a reliable source on a name change for that country?) to determine what a sovereign nation gets to call itself, and Wikipedia policies are neither infallible nor always right or sensible; at least the examples cited like Czechia and Belorussia are still recognizably the same name as the nations' Anglicized/older names- Swaziland and eSwatini are not. As others have also pointed out, what is the point in being a digital encyclopedia in the information age if we can't update these articles to change with the times? What difference is there between Wiki and a printed encyclopedia that must wait years for republishing to reflect any changes? Wait for a proper decree or whatever is published, then change the name.- ක - (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia is often frustratingly slow to pick up name changes. Who decides what's common use? People on the internet? If news articles and almanacs already will be using the new name, why not switch it now? This is an encyclopedia after all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.233.122.234 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * comment how about considering when, and if, their TLD, .sz, is changed? (mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:787F:233D:9DB0:A673 (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia follows instead of leads. This is a very recent change, and change takes time. The government's website still refers to it as Swaziland. While I absolutely support the name change in principle, it is still too soon. I would like to see official international organisations use the name before we make a full switch, much less the government's website. Also, we do not always use the shortened official name of the country as the main page (evidenced by Ivory Coast or East Timor). SportingFlyer  talk  02:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm personally very conservative on name changes unless they are clearly not matters of translation and this is entirely a matter of translation..."eSwatini" is Swazi for Swaziland.While Upper Volta changed its name to an entirely different name ("Burkina Faso" refers to the people,not a part of a river basin),Ivory Coast,East Timor,Burma,and now Swaziland have basically asked English-speakers not to use English,which is beyond their authority.I am more extreme than Wikiconsensus (I consider referring to Peking as "Beijing" akin to calling Naples "Napoli" or Germany "Deutschland" as English words) but I have to register a voice.Native-language names should be noted,but not defined as English-language names.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Swaziland remains the common name (in English) for this country, just like Ivory Coast is the common English name for "Côte d'Ivoire". English speakers, not foreign kings, determine how nations are called in English. Also, since eSwatini translates to "land of the Swazis", it is practically synonymous with "Swaziland". —General534 (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose In line with previous objections Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Oh gosh, if the supreme leader in Budapest grasps that, you would have to change every mention of Hungary to Magyarország because Magyars are of course not to be mistaken for Huns. --Pakeha (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per the reasons above – I'm also slightly frustrated by how slow Wikipedia is to promulgate official changes in naming and terminology. — Nightstallion
 * Oppose suggested rename I oppose the renaming of it to simply "eSwatini" if it is to be renamed at some point then it should be renamed to "Kingdom of eSwatini" however as it stands, it is unlikely to be renamed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose & Depose. Tiny unimportant country unlikely to have sufficient military resources to defend against a Wikipedia-led coup. Oppose name change, overthrow current government/ruling body and instill WP:DEMOCRACY to ensure current name is kept. 125.239.173.127 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We use the most common English name see Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, and East Timor, They have different official names than what Wikipedia uses Abote2 (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This change is simply too soon. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 10:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am afraid other nations, even South Africa where I live, will take a very long time to adjust to this name. Readers will feel they are at the incorrect page. I feel changes to the infobox, which have been done already, are appropriate – however, change to the article title is too soon as Swaziland is WP:COMMONNAME. -- Waddie96 (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As of now most media still refers to it as Swaziland - see back in maybe a year, if they start calling it "ESwatini" instead. Juxlos (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until we have enough time to assess what reliable sources do. It's fine to revisit this issue in some reasonable amount of time when we can see if reliable sources start calling it by its new name or not.  It's just too early to tell.  -- Jayron 32</b> 10:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"eSwatini" and variations in Swazilander English dialect?
Here is a point to pay attention to perhaps as time moves along considering the name of this Kingdom: Considering that English is a co-official language of this nation as is with South Africa, Botswana, etc.in this region of former British influence, should we see if "eSwatini"takes particular precedence over "Swaziland" in the dialect of the country and that region of Southern Africa in general? I am not familiar with the English of Swazilanders (and only know a little of South African English), but maybe this is also worth taking note of. Maybe there is no difference or a total shift, or maybe it shouldn't be considered? What do you think?- <b style="color: Crimson;">Sıgehelmus</b> <b style="color: SlateGray"> (Talk) ω</b> 14:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

help
Please move Swaziland to eSwatini the name of the country has now changed.

http://time.com/5247743/swaziland-king-renames-country-eswatini/ https://news.sky.com/story/king-of-swaziland-changes-his-countrys-name-to-eswatini-11338333 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-43821512


 * This has been discussed above, and persuant to Wikipedia guidelines, it is generally agreed that we follow common usage, so when the rest of the world starts using this name in regular usage, we will too. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Is new name oficially confirmed?
Is any official confirmation of this new name? Media reported about it, but change of country name is to serious matter to rely only on the media. The name of "Kingdom of Swaziland" is listed in the country constitution, and no official information that constitution has been amended. Moreover, government website still uses name "Kingdom of Swaziland". Aotearoa (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When it comes to government sources in sub-Saharan Africa, I would refer back to the debate over the "The" in "Republic of The Gambia" after the last President fled and whether it should be capitalized or not. It took a while to update IIRC because these kinds of countries can't handle an efficient bureaucracy for revising everything. It's low priority even for a name change. King Mswati III is the face and final word of the Executive branch and his dictum becomes law when he speaks it in a sense.-- <b style="color: Crimson;">Sıgehelmus</b> <b style="color: SlateGray"> (Talk) ω</b> 20:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd wait to see what happens at, e.g. the UN or official reputable English-language sources to see how they handle the change to see if the country becomes "Eswatini", "ESwatini" or "eSwatini", remains "Swaziland", or if there is dispute between all four names in the sources (particularly with Swaziland versus the other forms of the new name). Dreigorich (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, King Mswati III is the face and final word for everything in the country, but even in Swaziland kings orders/decisions/acts/... have to be published. To the moment we have only media information and no any official confirmation. Moreover without any official document we don't know the correct spelling of new name – media said "eSwatini" but on which evidence if no "paper" decision? I think Wikipedia is to hurry and made changes without strong sources (few months ago Wikipedia created a new country on the base of media information/speculation only) – it is better to wait few days/weeks than to change information to potentially incorrect one. Aotearoa (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, the website is http://www.gov.sz/ Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The banner with the whole name is a .jpg instead of HTML for the title....a redesign may slow down the update.-- <b style="color: Crimson;">Sıgehelmus</b> <b style="color: SlateGray"> (Talk) ω</b> 22:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The government website mentioned above by Andy is using eSwatini, I'd consider this official confirmation of the new name. Kges1901 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh wow it seems it was updated just today in whole, that's a good development. I'd like to see this spread as evidence.- <b style="color: Crimson;">Sıgehelmus</b> <b style="color: SlateGray"> (Talk) ω</b> 18:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This name has been discussed for several years and NatGeo has recognized the change  Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to wait at least a month (and probably 3-6 months) before another RM. It needs to be clear what the standard capitalization is from usage by newspapers, the UN, other governments, etc.; if it isn't, there's no reason to do the move. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that Swaziland has made similar change like in India (states, cities) – ie. adopted local name as English one without change of this local name. The country name in Swazi has been eSwatini (short form) and Umbuso weSwatini (long/official form) and this name is still binding. Aotearoa (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Swaziland still the most common name for this country??
This article is still titled Swaziland, meaning that this must still be the most common name for the country. What's wrong here?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing. The announcement was just made. There is no way thay references to the country (not just the name change) are using eSwatini yet. --Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean, Wikipedia is supposed to use the most common name even if dated?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean that right now the only usage of "eSwatini" is stories saying "Swaziland is now eSwatini". No one is wrotimg about elections in eSwatini. Or earthquakes in eSwatini. Or construction projects in eSwatini. When the proponderance of sources switch we will switch. --Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't know if the name is dated until we see which name is in common usage. Give it time; this is not the sort of knowledge we can accumulate instantaneously; we need to see how reliable sources handle this information, and our usage will reflect theirs.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes!! Most English speakers (outside of Swaziland and South Africa) still use "Swaziland" Just because the Swazi government made this change official, does not mean the the term "Swaziland" has gone out of common usage in the English language. I will remind all of our editors here of the following Wikipedia policy, which is quite clear on these matters: WP:COMMONNAME - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of eSwatini
The article currently transcribes eSwatini as /ɛˈswɑːtɪni/, but this seems a bit wrong. The Swazi pronunciation is [ɛswatʼiːni], so I think it is best adapted to English as /ɛswɑːˈtiːni/ or /eɪswɑːˈtiːni/. However, this word does not have an established pronunciation in English yet, so it may be best not to transcribe it. Smashhoof2 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Swazi pronunciation should definitely be included. As for English, in this case standard Anglicized stress should apply since most people who come to page will probably be looking for at least a basic idea of how to even say the name. The initial "e" phoneme is a problem though....maybe we shouldn't include it but who knows.- <b style="color: Crimson;">Sıgehelmus</b> <b style="color: SlateGray"> (Talk) ω</b> 01:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the English wiki. The Swazi version is not relevant here. Except as local name. --Wester (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes obviously but see nearly every other country page on this site. For instance Germany includes the IPA transcription for Bundesrepublik Deutschland....- <b style="color: Crimson;">Sıgehelmus</b> <b style="color: SlateGray"> (Talk) ω</b> 16:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ritual fetishes
What exactly are these ritual fetishes in the lead section and what does it mean to be their keeper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9289:6531:6f9b:9eae:3de4:cdfb (talk • contribs) 10:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbolic objects relevant to the country, I take it, like Britain's crown jewels.59.124.5.22 (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018
Hi I would want to change this to eSwatini Adi7842 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Per WP:COMMONNAME we are to use names that are in common use in English language media and sources, and eSwatini does not meet that criterion. It would also require a formal discussion since a move is likely to be contested because of WP:COMMONNAME. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

eSwatini or Eswatini?
In Germanic languages, capital letters are not used in the centre of words. Should the new name be written Eswatini rather than eSwatini? I believe it should. DG (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The word itself is in the Swazi language and is the official name for the country, the correct format is eSwatini while those outside of the country will likely continue to refer to it as Swaziland so there's no need for the change. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here. Should the name "eSwatini" become official and the common name, we'll see how the capitalization holds. I think there will be an inevitable shift to "Eswatini" in usage from the original "eSwatini". Botswana is a precedent, from a prefix Bo- + Tswana, as is Lesotho. Dreigorich (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Botswana is different because Setswana has a different capitalization scheme. They don't capitalize in the middle of words, so you have Motswana/Batswana/Setswana/Botswana. But siSwati has a different capitalization scheme, so you get umSwati/emaSwati/siSwati/eSwatini. For a precedent, look KwaZulu-Natal, which keeps the capitalization in the middle of the word. Also the Zulu language is occasionally written isiZulu in English. Smashhoof2 (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not true at all. English is a germanic language and we have names like McDonalds McRobert etc I know hundreds of people with names that have capital letters in the middle of them (although i know they probably originate from Gaelic languages originally)
 * We also have things like iPad and iPhone. Sure, those are brand names, but I haven't seen much tendency to render them as Iphone and Ipad for Germanic language reasons. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * M(a)c- is a Celtic prefix connected to a term for "ancestor" and it still starts with a capital latter itself. Also I have rarely seen a lack of a subsequent capital, there are some "Macdonalds"for instance. If "Eswatini" becomes common Anglicized usage then that is perfectly acceptable.- <b style="color: Crimson;">Sıgehelmus</b> <b style="color: SlateGray"> (Talk) ω</b> 14:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Botswana and Lesotho aren't comparable: Sotho and Tswana capitalisation conventions are different from those of the Nguni languages, like Swati. And the South African province of KwaZulu-Natal (and before that the Bantustan of KwaZulu) provide precedent for a 'non-standard' capitalisation being accepted in English for what is, after all, a loan word. 105.8.5.41 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

While there should not be any issue with countries changing their names according to their preference (its their sovereign right to do so), there should be concerns when these names - usually a transliteration of the traditional or local name of the country - require breaking the basic rules of the English language, when the name is to appear in an English language article. I believe one basic rule of English is that the spelling of proper nouns - which the names of countries are (I don't think they should be comparable to brand names like "iPad", or maybe they should?) - must begin with the upper case. Hence, the spelling "eSwatini", which is correct in Siswati, is deemed not correct IN ENGLISH. Bending of the rules of English to allow words from non-English languages which use the Latin alphabet to be rendered in their original spelling or spelling rules may seem harmless but this opens up to the situation where non-English spelling rules, some which are in conflict with English, start being introduced. Côte d'Ivoire is a good example where "ô" is not a letter in the English Latin alphabet and there is no "d'I" in English spelling. If Hungary decides that the world needs to refer to it as Magyarország only, do we bring "á" into the English language? If adopting "ô" or "á" is OK, which essentially is introducing letters of another alphabet into the English language, then why just stop there and not go further to adopt the Icelandic "Þ"? Or letters of the Greek Alphabet? Or even Arabic or Chinese characters? I have no problem if one day China insisted that it be called Zhongguo or Chungkuo in its English form, but if you force me to render your name as 中国 in all documents irrespective of language, I don't think that wound be accepted. Knowing how to read and pronounce letters or characters of another alphabet is commendable and should be encouraged, but they should not be forced into the English language. So, it should be Eswatini in English, and eSwatini in Siswati (name in the English context).Slleong (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "I believe one basic rule of English is that the spelling of proper nouns [...] must begin with the upper case. Hence, the spelling 'eSwatini', which is correct in Siswati, is deemed not correct IN ENGLISH."


 * Tried this argument on the talk pages of, say, Leonardo da Vinci or Rio de Janeiro? English (but specifically: the English-language Wikipedia) imports common foreign names with their native capitalization.  (For that matter, importation isn't necessary: we preserve uncapitalized double-f in English names like Baron ffrench and ffolkes baronets.)   There's no reason to recapitalize eSwatini when we leave these other spellings unaltered.  --Heath 184.170.76.239 (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. Thanks for pointing out Baron ffrench and ffolkes baronets as I never learnt those in school. And indeed we accept "da Vinci" in this form when referring to Leonardo's family name, and use the lover case when using Romance language words. I guess the main takeaway from this is that we will always have exceptions to established rules or conventions. The question would then be when do we allow exceptions which bend rules and conventions, and how far do we go with the exceptions - only for Latin alphabet languages? Including all the "non-English" letters of the Latin alphabet? Slleong (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be Eswatini. See the legal notice .--QBear (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please cite the portion of that legal notice that has any force over anyone outside of the country itself or not bound by diplomatic protocol. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean the official name should be Eswatini instead of eSwatini which was reported by some media. I agree that "Swaziland" is still the common name.--QBear (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Jumping the gun with the name change
Someone has gone and replaced all instances of "Swaziland" in the article with the new official name "eSwatini". I think this is considerably too soon and I'm requesting someone to reverse this change. It can be reapplied once the name becomes the common name (WP:COMMONNAME). S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

✅. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Undone as my changes also change cites. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you eliminated *all* references to eSwatini? It probably needs one bold reference near the beginning. EuroAgurbash (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. Something like, "officially the kingdom of eSwatini or something to that effect. ThirdDolphin (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to reverse the change myself now by using an older revision and to add a compromise into the top section. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to reverse the change as well. Now it's back to normal in mostly saying Swaziland, but mentioning this new alternate name in the lead for now. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify my revert of this: it also changed the mentions of the name actually being changed as well as the new official name (both in English and Swati) and such, which is I believe it was a net negative. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A problem now seems to be editors oblivious to the conversation held here - if this keeps happening, the page might need some form of protection. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Shoot, sorry about messing it up. My bad. Just trying to reverse the "replace all Swaziland with eSwatini" change. (Like, unless this discussion reaches a consensus to change everything to "eSwatini", it might not be best to have everything say eSwatini. For now, it's an alternate name that it's not commonly known by yet. Like, the North Korea article uses "North Korea" a lot instead of "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" everywhere.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but KCNA uses both “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” and “North Korea”. Rariteh (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I read KCNA fairly regularly and I don't think I've ever seen them call themselves "North Korea". Maybe very rarely in certain contexts. But they usually say "DPRK", and sometimes just "Korea". They actually don't like the name "North Korea" and they don't encourage it because they don't recognize the division of the country as legitimate and don't want to encourage the idea that Korea is two countries. Kawada Kira (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have now requested page protection via WP:RFP. I cannot keep reverting further. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 19:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As a note, this revision has the country names mostly correct according to the current consensus - eSwatini should only appear in official names, mentions of the name change and the top section (but nowhere else, such as the common_name on the country infobox). S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the article should start with the new name until, and only if, the article name is moved. I think it's just wholly inconsistent the way it looks now. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected the article for 1 week; please continue discussing the name change here. I've also removed the update maintenance tag because I felt it might mislead users inclined to changing the name throughout the article into doing so. Mz7 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

At what point does the name change become 'official' the King's decree is on the official Swaziland Government website [] []. May I strongly suggest that once the website has changed the name, Wikipedia should follow suit. Also the direct link to the King's speech should take precedence over the BBC report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stub Mandrel (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Once everyone refers to it as “ESwatini” instead of Swaziland - the same reason it’s North Korea instead of DPRK. Maybe a few months at the earliest. Juxlos (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the difference in this case is even I am not sure how to pronounce the new name. Related to that, there should be an IPA in English and Swazi in the lede.- <b style="color: Crimson;">Sıgehelmus</b> <b style="color: SlateGray"> (Talk) ω</b> 23:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The name change became "official" immediately upon the King's decree. Swaziland's own name for itself is now "Kingdom of eSwatini". However, you seem to be confusing "official name" with "name of the Wikipedia page". These are not the same thing. It is conceivable that the official name will become commonly used in English in just a few months, and the page would then be moved. It is also conceivable that the name change may never become common in English usage, and the page would then not be moved. --Khajidha (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I think User:Tariqabjotus decision to not move Burma --> Myanmar in 2012 is a good read. And Relevant. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The example of North Korea is misleading, the DPRK is the official long name not the short hand, it would be comparable to the Kingdom of eSwatini rather than eSwatini. I fail to see how it is too soon to change the name given the decree has already been made by the absolute monarch of said country. 2A02:C7F:7212:4400:D253:49FF:FE99:A4E7 (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Taiwan is a better example than North Korea. Official name is Republic of China, but most people refer to it as Taiwan since it's shorter. Indeed, that's the name Wikipedia refers to it as. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

What about the example of Greece? The name of the article should reflect how the country is referred to in English language and the English language doesn't change by a decision of a monarch. Džuris (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Greece is not a good example as they all hate being called Greece instead of Hellas. Seriously, as a Greek, it does reaaallllyyyy annoy us immensely. It shouldnt change by a decision of a monarch, but if the people you label as such, you should deem it common courtesy to honor their request. It is their historical name, and the British called it Swaziland due to the decision of the monarch at the time.. so your answer is hypocritical and I disagree completely, Džuris. Κοματσουλάκης (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Help request
Country has officially changed its name to Eswatini. Please move the main title to Eswatini.

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/Swaziland_officially_changes_name_to_Eswatini_advises_foreign_affairs_ministry

http://www.africanews.com/2018/05/19/swaziland-name-change-to-eswatini-is-now-official/

http://menafn.com/1097000949/Swaziland-Officially-Changes-Name-To-Eswatini
 * Please see the move request and the edit request above. An RFC will be required to establish an exception to WP:COMMONNAME. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 10:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I was indifferent before, but the United Nations Statistics Division now recognizes this name change and now lists "Swaziland" as "Eswatini" Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 04:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2018
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Swaziland → Eswatini – See above. UN has confirmed the name change. 135.23.145.49 (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support per the rationale in the previous talk section: UN website I can understand counterarguments that would suggest that the official UN name shouldn't necessarily be the title because Macedonia is listed as the former Yugoslav republic, but I'm also noticing that it's becoming increasingly common for RS sources to just refer to the country as ESwatini or eSwatini now. Many of the editors that previously opposed stated in their rationale that it was too soon because they were waiting for the international community to recognize this name change, but now that that criteria has been satisfied so many of the editors from the previous discussion may consider supporting renaming the article. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 09:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. We go by what is in common use in English language media, not by what the UN or any other organisation says or by what "the international community recognise", and thus do not change names of articles, i.e. move them, until after a clear majority of English language media/sources have switched to the new name. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until/unless the WP:COMMONNAME in English changes, noting that the proposer does not claim that it has. Kahastok talk 11:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that the rationale given by the proposer isn't a valid rationale for a name change under our guidelines (and "see above" isn't a rationalesee what above?). Adding to the echo chamber, see WP:COMMONNAME. Largoplazo (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose move for now. We haven't yet reached a point where the common name has changed. I admit that some sources call it ESwatini, but the name "Swaziland" continues to see more common usage.  ONR  (talk)  11:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral. CIA World Factbook uses the new name. Many other sources such as Britannica and Google Maps still use the old name. --2601:183:101:58D0:1119:4FFF:1508:1FCA (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose move for now. I agree that we haven't yet reached a point where the common name in English has changed - and probably never will. We don't use "Deutschland" rather than Germany and the local language name of eSwatini is not relevant while "Swaziland" continues to see much more common usage in English. --BushelCandle (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I had never even heard of the new name until a couple of minutes ago. PatGallacher (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, this is still too soon to change the name. Not enough secondary sources are using the eSwatini name at this time. -- hmich 176 17:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's way too soon to see if this name sticks. The common name is still the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above. --Khajidha (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The UN has officially recognised the name changed so we should. Tofusaurus (talk)
 * Naming on Wikipedia isn't based on what the UN says. See the guidelines already linked multiple times above. Largoplazo (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As the banner at the top of this section says !votes should be based on Wikipedia's article naming policy, and other valid policies here, not on personal opinions. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, per WP:COMMONNAME: when common usage changes, as it will eventually, we can move the article to reflect that. -- The Anome (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the previous RFC as well as obviously all of the above. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The English name of the country is now Eswatini. Swaziland may still be slightly more common among the ill-informed, but accuracy is also an important consideration. Eswatini does seem now to be the more common name among those who routinely deal with the country in English, such as American aid workers and epidemiologists. Here's one example: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6723a3.htm?s_cid=mm6723a3_x Furorimpius (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose also as per the last move discussion. When the sources change, we'll change. Dreigorich (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the official name of the country is now eSwatini. It is absurd that we would not follow the country's wish to name their own country, leaving aside that they are dropping their colonial name and using their own name from their own language. The new name is a fact; not an issue for discussion by a "community" of people outside of their country. Kkaaramm (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Comment I've noticed that many of the recent OPPOSE votes mention that they need more secondary sources to use the name first, but I would like to add that it's now a very, very easy task to find many sources referring to the country as eSwatini even when not talking about the name change event. Searching "Eswatini" once returned the following stories whose titles or bodies use the new name:
 * ("Sands puts eSwatini on the map" on iol.co.za)
 * ("eSwatini says keeping Taiwan diplomatic relations despite Chinese pressure" on Business Insider)
 * ("eSwatini prince loves Taiwan, wants to keep studying here" on FocusTaiwan)
 * ("Mr Eswatini Finalists 2018 on Charity Dive" on Times of Swaziland)
 * ("Eswatini economic factsheet" on the government of the United Kingdom website)
 * ("Taiwan holds large military drills amid China tensions" on Ashashi from reuters)
 * ("The Federation Establishes Diplomatic Relations With The Kingdom Of Eswatini" on Winn FM)
 * ("After 6-country World Race, Hammett’s headed to AU" on Andalusia local news)
 * ("Taiwan has lost all its friends in Africa – except eSwatini" on MSN news from ISS Africa Today)


 * I got all of these just by searching the term "Eswatini" on DuckDuckGo and looking at news. I can't say with certainty if the COMMONNAME has changed because Swaziland is still used too, but I'd say you can argue that the term "Swaziland" is losing its status as the COMMONNAME. "Eswatini"/"eSwatini" is evidently being used everywhere from major publications to minor publications, international outlets to local outlets in other countries, whether the story is about Eswatini/Swaziland or a different place/person/thing, and even government websites of other countries. Take this argument with a grain of salt because it's difficult to find data on which name is the most commonly used, but the UN accepting the change was enough to sway me on this. It's not just the UN, but also the CIA World Factbook and the UK government - which I'd argue hold a lot of weight as sources - but as I've shown there's even outlets of all sizes now using the new name, and WP:NAMECHANGES say "When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced." Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and if you had made a search on Swaziland you would have gotten even more results, since Swaziland still outnumbers eSwatini/Eswatini by a factor of at least 20:1, counting only the last few weeks. Being given extra weight only means that if the usage is even between an old name and a new name we should consider using the new name, it does not mean that we can do a search on the new name only, and point to those results, while conveniently forgetting to do a search on the old name too. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that I still found results for Swaziland, but I did not see a factor of "20:1" more results. I found less twenty (a total of exactly 18) Swaziland results total unless I went back at least 57 days, so the claim that there's twenty times as many results for Swaziland is just wrong. That's hyperbolic enough that it's not an honest argument. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's actually a lot more than a factor of 20:1. An "advanced search" on Google limited to pages in English published during the past 30 days returned 18.9 million pages using Swaziland but only 16,400 pages using eSwatini or Eswatini, or a factor of 1,152:1. And even the official website of the government of Swaziland still use the old name... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you mentioned that, I thought I'd try it myself.
 * Advanced search with the following parameters:
 * all these words: Swaziland
 * none of these words: Eswatini
 * last update: Last month
 * terms appearing: Text of the page
 * Note that this method is inclusive to results that would not be relevant on the encyclopedia, not just news stories, including any website updated in any way as long as the word "Swaziland" is somewhere in it.
 * 15 pages of results for Swaziland. 9 pages of results for ESwatini. Swaziland produced more results, but not by a ratio of 152:1, 20:1 or even 2:1.
 * I also went to the government website gov.sz and you can see it displays in all caps "SWAZILAND NOW PROUDLY ESWATINI" on item 5. It also says "Copyright © 2018. Eswatini Government." on the bottom, and it refers to the country only as "Eswatini" on item 2. Even the outdated (it displays today's date on all pages) "About Us" page you linked to which used the word Swaziland actually said "Eswatini Government" on the bottom of the page. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As for the official website, did you click on the link I provided in my post? It's a page where the government of Swaziland describe what their country is, its constitution and so on, using Swaziland every time. And there's no way you could have gotten just 15 pages for Swaziland if you searched for all pages published in English worldwide during the past 30 days (heck, even my local news site has used Swaziland more than 15 times during the past month...), so do it again, but do it right this time... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 23:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You might want to check what I said again. The "About Us" page was outdated (they display today's date on all pages) and **even on that page** it said "Eswatini Government" on the bottom of the page. As for your other argument, you can replicate what I did exactly. 15 and 9 pages of results. I didn't filter by English, but realistically I should have because this affects the English name of the country. If you dismissively say "do it again but do it right" without providing anything else then I can reasonably dismiss that request the same way you dismissed what I said. I told you exactly what I did. Realistically, the amount of times that Swaziland/Eswatini gets referenced in 30 days shouldn't be in the tens of millions unless you're not filtering out any of the irrelevant junk or restricting it to pages that actually use the desired term within the text. When you say "even my local news outlet used Swaziland more than 15 times in the last month" if you're referring to 15 separate individual stories published by your local news outlet then I'd be very surprised unless you live near Swaziland/Eswatini, but if you mean to count every single time they use the word rather than the number of individual publications that use the word then that's highly problematic. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Ultimately, the issue is who gets to determine what a country is called, or in this context specifically, what a country is to be called in the English language. I would think firstly, the country itself will have the sovereign right to do so. Secondly, it would also be the country's right to determine if an old "common" name should not to be used anymore, for whatever reason (change of government eg Zaire to DR Congo; reflecting territorial change eg Malaya to Malaysia, USSR to Russian Federation; erasing a colonial label eg Bechuanaland to Botswana). This active declaration in itself - and it shouldn't matter if it is done during independence or 50 years after - should trigger a switch in common usage and this is recognised in WP:NAMECHANGES which says: "When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced." This is different from cases such as Thailand which has not made any attempts to get the world to start calling it "Prathet Thai", Germany to be called "Deutschland" or even China to be called "Zhongguo" in English, and hence, the common English usage remains "common" and acceptable worldwide and also in the countries themselves.Slleong (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "I would think firstly, the country itself will have the sovereign right to do so." Why? I would think that the people speaking of that country would have that right, just as they have the right to determine the names used for anything else they are speaking of. --Khajidha (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, "extra weight" doesn't mean "ignore all uses of the old name". I know Google searches aren't the be-all-and-end-all, but when news searches for Swaziland yield 7.6 million plus hits and for Eswatini yield 62500 results I don't think you can justify enough "extra weight" to enforce the change. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Guess we will just have to agree to disagree. A country having to put up with what other people insist on calling it - especially when it was a label that was given not by the people of the country themselves and despite declaring that it doesn't want to be known that way anymore (and this is the main trigger) - smacks of imperialist and colonialist overtones. So just when does a new name become "acceptable" to the majority of the world? I believe the transformation from Malaya to Malaysia and its acceptance was overnight, only thing, there wasn't Wikipedia at that time. And of course Google searches of Swaziland will show up more results than Eswatini, since the former name has been around for 100 years. I guess if I needed to know the actual name of a country, I will have to look elsewhere because in Wikipedia, it may depict what people who are not from that country think that country should be known as. Slleong (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And I find the assertion that the English language must use a Swazi word to smack of arrogance. I particularly find this situation to be ridiculous because "Swaziland" and "Eswatini" both mean "land of the Swazis". It's as silly as saying that English must start calling the color "red" by the French word "rouge". --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a relevant analogy because red is not a concept tied to a particular country, or to the French language. And in fact we do say "Khmer Rouge" rather than "Red Khmers". But the key point with Khmer Rouge or Swaziland or Myanmar or anywhere else, is what do reliable English sources say. That's what matters, not whether anyone's being arrogant or our personal opinions. I think it's still Swaziland but that could change in time, much as Myanmar did. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that my objection is only to the proposed forcing of usage ("should change", "needs to change", and "must change" are phrasings used by those who advocate thus), not to actual usage. Some non-English place names are fully accepted (Costa Rica), some are partially translated (Cape Verde), and some are fully translated (Ivory Coast). The important point is that the English language name is decided by weight of usage, not decree. My point in that analogy is that country names are words like any other words. --Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes by what people are calling things, not by declarations of what people should be calling them. There's no "putting up with" here other than, perhaps putting up with Wikipedia's striving to represent actual predominant usage. If you want to argue with the people who are calling it "Swaziland", argue with them. If you want to argue against Wikipedia's general guidelines regarding naming, in favor of replacing the current descriptive approach with a prescriptive approach, argue it at the pertinent guideline page. But please understand that the point of having site-wide guidelines is so there will be uniformity, and so people don't waste time and space having the same arguments over general practice on the talk page of every article to which the practice applies. Largoplazo (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bechuanaland to Botswana, Basutoland to Lesotho, New Hebrides to Vanuatu, Gilbert Islands to Kiribati - the transformations are inevitable, not because the names became popular but the fact that those countries declared that they will henceforth be know by those names. Country names are not mere nouns but proper nouns, created for a reason to assert an identity. Indeed a spade should be called a spade, but a country's identity is very different from that of a spade, no? The dynamism of Wikipedia could have aided in this change, instead of fossilising something that the owner has discarded. But of course this goes to the crux of the common usage guidelines, and should be taken up in the common usage guideline discussion page. Space and time should not be wasted any further here. But what was said above was just a natural extension to the discussion to the Swaziland -> Eswatini change.Slleong (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) In all the examples you gave the name changed because the place changed. Bechuanaland and Botswana are not two names for the same thing, they are two things that have existed in sequence.
 * 2) "a country's identity is very different from that of a spade, no?" No. --Khajidha (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changing "Kingdom of eSwatini" to "Kingdom of Eswatini"
The official name of the country should be "Kingdom of Eswatini" Here are the references:
 * 1) Legal Notice No.80 of 2018 published in the Swaziland Government Gazette on May 18.
 * 2) Swaziland govenment website (Copyright © 2018. Eswatini Government.)
 * 3) "Country Names May 2018" published by the UK government
 * 4) "Independent States in the World" published by the U.S Department of State on May 30.

Any comments?--QBear (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is just about changing the official name listed in this article from eSwatini to Eswatini, correct? It has nothing to do with the actual page name or usage in running prose, correct? I have no objection to that. --Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, just the "official full name". I changed that few days ago, but User:Paintspot reverted it and told me to get some sort of consensus. This should also apply to the name in List of sovereign states.--QBear (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting find. So apparently my hypothesis was correct! Dreigorich (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll have to see if other sources follow suit as well, though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The "official full name" or "formal name" should only depend on the country itself. Since Swaziland did not published the official document until May 18, about a month after the King's announcement. It was understandable that why some source used "eSwatini". But I think it is clear that which one is "official" now.--QBear (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This might be a wild theory but "Eswantini" isn't just an unfortunate case of auto-capitialisation when typing into a computer or device, is it? doktorb wordsdeeds 05:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No Comment, not interested in this topic, it's not like the code for these pages is case sensitive, so why should we be? This obsession with grammar is stale. Also iPod, is no different to how eSwatini is capitalised, just saying. Search Bicapitalization if you're interested further. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "The obsession with grammar is stale," is not a statement I agree with, though this is a discussion for another place. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The World Factbook by CIA and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Taiwan  are also using "Kingdom of Eswatini". Therefore I don't think these are just "auto-capitialisation" errors.--QBear (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Now that the dust has settled, I think it is much clearer that government sources prefer Eswatini over eSwatini and I am now going to edit the lede accordingly. --BushelCandle (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NAMECHANGES
I just want to mention that the policy just below WP:COMMONNAME is the aforementioned in title "WP:NAMECHANGES". As rationale for the application of the latter policy, I feel like the situation of the Swazi people should be given the same dignity as any one individual. Further, going by historical consensus on Myanmar (formerly Burma), I believe that there is indeed room to bypass COMMONNAME as a policy.

To speak more generally on the discussion so far: policies are not set in stone, merely indicating tradition in common circumstances; eSwatini or Eswatini, I believe the situation is sufficiently different to warrant a more critical analysis than simply dumping past precedent in support of the status quo. Anyway, thanks in advance for any constructive criticism; for now I rest my case. -Techhead7890 (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ps: If you need to get in touch I suggest my talk as I am not watching this page. 14:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that the Myanmar government adopted Myanmar long before Wikipedia was founded, but our article was nonetheless Burma until about 2012, when consensus was reached that the WP:COMMONNAME had changed. As above, there is consensus against moving this page at this time.  Kahastok talk 21:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notes on Burma. Regarding the move itself, thanks for the info but that is not actually a consensus and I resent the fact that you call it as such. The admins said there was in fact, no consensus to move, so the status quo is being maintained. There was not in fact a consensus to remain. Techhead7890 (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Struck – was ignorant of the second discussion as I did not see it. Techhead7890 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I quote the RM close of 23 June (i.e. 8 days ago) with emphasis original:


 * "The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below."


 * I do not care that you resent my referring to a "consensus not to move" as a "consensus against moving". I see no reason why I should feel pressured into pretending that consensus was not reached when the closer said that it was.  If you have a problem with that, ANI is thataway. Kahastok talk 10:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A country is not a person, there is no "same dignity" involved in what we choose to call a particular chunk of dirt.--Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A country is made up of people and from there I think the argument is fairly straightforward. Try harder to understand national politics and don't troll with such blunt comments, you are just asking to be flamed. Techhead7890 (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A country is a thing created by people, but it is not those people. --Khajidha (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Techhead7890. The discussion above, and its result, is a good example of what frustrates me the most, as an educated & committed but not constantly involved Wikipedia editor, about editing Wikipedia: the ability of a small clique of editors, quoting Wikipedia policies like legal precedent, to impose decisions that fly in the face of common sense, and that completely ignore the politics of their decisions.

The sovereign government of eSwatini has renamed the state; the UN, the U.S., the EU, the UK, etc., have all recognized this change. This change was made from the society's colonial to its precolonial name; this is a change in line with that of Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, Bombay to Mumbai, etc. Wikipedia editors don't have the right to oppose it because every single Western news source doesn't yet use the new name — this is a decision that the state itself has a right to make. (And, honestly, I'll bet that a lot of news sources are saying "well, the Wikipedia page is still title 'Swaziland' so we should use that name" — it's a vicious circle.)

The country's name is eSwatini; the Wikipedia page should reflect this fact. CircleAdrian (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Exactly how is it "common sense" that any government can impose its naming on worldwide language usage? That seems far from sensical to me. In fact, it seems completely arrogant. If, for whatever reason, the mass of English language usage were to start calling Germany by the new name "Dobblepoppupia", then that would be the English name of that country and there would be nothing the Germans could say about it. --Khajidha (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The arrogance lies in the idea that the entire world — including that country's government — should call a country by the name imposed by a British colonial government. CircleAdrian (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * With some notable exceptions, the English Wikipedia is geared up to be a descriptive project not a prescriptive endeavour. --BushelCandle (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that the entire world (and most especially not the country's own government} has to use the "name imposed by a British colonial government". The Swazis can call their country Eswatini and that's fine with me. But if the rest of the English speaking world wants to call it Swaziland, I don't see why that is a problem. Any more than it is a problem for the Germans to call their country Deutschland, while the French call it Allemagne, and we call it Germany. --Khajidha (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @BushelCandle/Khajidha Agree with the concept of arrogance. English Wikipedia ought to descriptively reflect the government, not any random group of wikipedian editors or visitors. In no way are we prescribing anything but what the official eSwatinian government has declared (cue Inigo Montoya saying "I don't think that word means what you think it does".)Techhead7890 (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And we do reflect such government declarations. It's in the first sentence: "officially the Kingdom of Eswatini". --Khajidha (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Adrian. I'm 100% in agreement with your analysis of the circlejerk. Educated people Academics will switch to eSwatini (or Eswatini) and I don't think that maintaining the status quo for the sake of meaningless precedent is at all well reasoned. Techhead7890 (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't only for self-proclaimed "educated people", but for all English speakers, which is why we go by what is in common use in English language media and sources... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC) (implying that editors who are against changing the name before common usage has changed aren't educated is outright childish...)


 * Note that nothing has been argued against the current name here that wasn't already considered by the WP:RM above, that closed just over a week ago with the conclusion that there is consensus against the move. I suggest that those who want a move cease their aggression and instead channel their energies into finding sources that would persuade editors that the name has changed in common usage.  I am certain that most who objected on that basis that it has not changed in common usage would happily reassess based on convincing new evidence. Kahastok talk 10:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Admittedly that was horrendous phrasing, I intended (although admittedly, there is no way of proving that intent) to refer to academic usage, which as an Encyclopaedia reliant on such sources, we must reflect. But regardless I will acknowledge that it has led to useless debate as Kahastok mentioned. I'm sorry about causing that, and additionally I retract my position on the point of blame or imposition (that belongs in a history symposium), because as just mentioned such will eventually come out in the sources.Techhead7890 (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2018
Every instance of "Swaziland" should be changed to "Eswatini" in accordance with 'The Declaration of Change of Swaziland Name Notice, 2018' (SWAZILAND GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY, VOL. LVI, NO. 68, MBABANE, Friday, MAY 11th, 2018, PART C - LEGAL NOTICE #80, Pg. S1).

Additionally, the legal notice states the name change shall be deemed to have come into force on 19th April 2018.

QUOTE from legal notice: "2. The name of the Kingdom of Swaziland is changed to Kingdom of Eswatini." (Note capitalization of first letter rather than widely reported eSwatini)

The short form name of the country is also to be referred to as "Eswatini".

QUOTE from Department of State website: "In a diplomatic note sent on May 18, 2018, the Swaziland Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation requested that the United States Government change the name of the country from ‘Swaziland’ to ‘Eswatini’. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names approved the change on May 25, 2018." 214.28.226.252 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. See discussions above.--Khajidha (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

CIA, UN now using eSwatini
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/wz.html http://www.un.org/en/member-states/#gotoE

GeneralGreene (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Not when I looked just now!
 * The CIA website used either ALL CAPs or "Eswatini", for example: "conventional long form: Kingdom of Eswatini conventional short form: Eswatini"


 * And so does the UN website: "Eswatini (the Kingdom of)" --BushelCandle (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Does not matter. The Wikipedia title is only based on which name is more common in usage by the people, for example in the Press. There is no governing institution of the English Language, meaning absolutely no institution, be it english-speaking or not, can define the English name of a place. It is common that places have different namens in different languages. Or should Russia be called Rossija from now on? Or China Zhongguo? --Tscherpownik (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2018
All words "Swaziland" need to be changed to eSwantini AeIoUwE (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ 2 RM's to move the page were closed as "Not moved" as Swaziland is still the common name in English, and there's no good reason to change the article text before changing the article name. Iffy★Chat -- 08:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

question regarding the name change
Hello My name is Andrew, and I am originally from eSwatini Can we establish when exactly it is that the name becomes common enough for the Wikipedia article to change its name from the colonial term Swaziland to our traditional eSwatini? I think if we can establish where the line is it will help those above who are still questioning the decision to keep the article as Swaziland understand your meaning better. Please help? Thanks 199.101.62.30 (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The name change will occur when Eswatini is more commonly used in the English-speaking world, in common media sources from for example the US, UK, etc. and Swaziland becomes the rarer term or infrequently used. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The initial question is flawed because it assumes that such a change will happen and even that it should happen. English language usage is all that matters. Some countries have been known in English by their native names more or less "forever" and some have native names that are basically unknown in English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, just as China how often their country's actual name is used in English or English Wikipedia. 172.85.206.206 (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Swaziland" no longer WP:COMMONNAME
eSwatini was in the news again recently, this time regarding its relations with Taiwan. From my searching of these more recent stories relating to Taiwan, only one Indian news site called it Swaziland, a Russian news site and a Taiwanese paper called it Eswatini, while all the rest appeared to call it eSwatini, including BBC News and Reuters, often explaining that Swaziland was eSwatini's former name. There were several additional news sites, including The New York Times, that carried stories by Reuters or BBC News, including their eSwatini usage.

While they have other names in their native languages, China and Germany recognize and use the names China and Germany when communicating in English and are all recognized by those names by the UN. But eSwatini, which uses English as an official language, no longer recognizes Swaziland as its English-language name, so Eswatini, not Swaziland, appears alongside China and Germany in the UN's list of member states, as well as well as in lists maintained by the U.S. State Department and the UK Foreign Ministry.

Most official government sources seem to use the Eswatini capitalization, including the eSwatini government's website, either as Eswatini or Kingdom of Eswatini, while news sites tend to use eSwatini. Regardless, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES both guide away from Swaziland now, and I would submit that while Kingdom of Eswatini is the official name, eSwatini is the common name and should be our title. Pdxuser (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: The Guardian and The Telegraph, two major British newspapers, have now weighed in and both use Eswatini. Pdxuser (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This just came up on University Challenge. The question was, which African country has borders with only South Africa and Mozambique? The team answered Swaziland, this was accepted without comment. PatGallacher (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * University Challenge is "filmed some months in advance", so it's unclear what the country's status was at the time of recording. Pdxuser (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Starting from Today, the official recorded name is eSwatini https://www.dw.com/en/from-swaziland-to-eswatini-whats-in-a-name-change/a-45372631 There's officially no more so called "Swaziland" Also major news platforms no longer use Swaziland https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-45271974 https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/09/06/l-eswatini-un-demi-siecle-et-rien-a-feter-sauf-pour-son-roi_5351347_3212.html https://allafrica.com/stories/201809030115.html Major NGO as well https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/08/eswatini-forced-evictions-expose-flawed-land-laws-as-hundreds-face-homelessness/ https://www.msf.org/eswatini And it's not logical to adopt the official name in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Eswatini And in here https://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESwatini without adapting it in the country page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.178.16.151 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It is now September 2018. There is a need to change the article title to Eswatini or at least hold another discussion on the matter taking recent events into account.
English language media now almost elusively uses the new name.

As to "common name": most English speaking people do not regularly think about Swaziland/Eswatini and many have never even heard of the country. The English speaking people who DO have anything to do with Eswatini have mostly accepted the name change. As of now (early Sept 2018) anyone who use s "Swaziland" is doing so most likely because they have not yet heard of the name change. This is in contrast to various cases (both historical and contemporary) where a certain people deliberately chooses to use a certain exonym despite the presence of a different endonym.

It is riduculous the extent to which Wikipedia editors obsess over their system of rules, treating the guidelines as some legal constitution and previous editing decisions as judicial precedent. Please, use simple common sense. The article name needs to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.88.245 (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why, yes, it's ridiculous that there's a framework to guide activities here so that there's order and stability instead of leaving everything to anarchy and mayhem and allowing endless edit warring by those inclined to engage in it with no consequences. Largoplazo (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The name change happened in April, and October would be the six-month mark. I think there is enough evidence now that the eSwatini/Eswatini name is broadly accepted, but I'm willing to wait until October before a new move request discussion. We'll need to look at all the objections to the previous move requests and provide evidence as to why they're no longer valid. I attempted to do that with my opening comment in the above section. Pdxuser (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the above statement 100%. Just because the media, Google maps, certain web journals, etc. may use a state's newly installed name does not mean that all English speakers across the globe will have universally accepted the swap in their vocabulary and, thus, use a different common name for something. The same situation exists for Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire, East Timor/Timor Leste, Czech Republic/Czechia, etc. Just because a country wants to be called something specific does not mean that common speakers of a language are going to do it, despite attempts by media outlets to try and force a change. Such changes in place names within English (or lack thereof) are dependent on the natural evolution of the English language by a majority of its speakers, that is how language works. I can tell you that in my homeland of neighboring South Africa the majority of English speakers have always called this country Swaziland, and I doubt that they will change this habit in the near future because of some arbitrary decree to do so. I will state however, that this is a totally different matter when considering a country's formal name. The formal name is always determined by what the state wishes to call itself by and there is no room for doubt or deviation from this. In the case of Swaziland the formal name is now the "Kingdom of Eswatini". NOT the "Kingdom of Swaziland", the "Kingdom of eSwatini", the "kingdom of Eswatini" or even just plain "Eswatini". The formal name (in English) is now the "Kingdom of Eswatini" officially. But do not expect the common name to change from Swaziland anytime soon by the majority of English language speakers. - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses reliable sources. "All English speakers," as you say, do not need to have "universally accepted" anything to make an edit. WP:NAMECHANGES states, "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." We should follow the guidance of Wikipedia's rules. As for East Timor, etc., these examples strengthen the argument for dropping the old Swaziland name, because sources that use East Timor and Ivory Coast also use eSwatini, reinforcing that eSwatini is the common name. A search for Timor-Leste on BBC News, which uses eSwatini, shows they always call it East Timor instead. Same with Reuters. Reliable sources consider East Timor AND eSwatini to both be the common English names of these countries. These sources also use Ivory Coast in their English-language news, except when referring to entities like Air Cote d'Ivoire, or when quoting other sources. This clarifies that eSwatini is not like Timor-Leste and Cote d'Ivoire, it's like East Timor and Ivory Coast: It's the common English name. Pdxuser (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, and assuming that the edit notice is correct, this article is written in South African English, so if there is a split in usage between countries, it is the variant in use in South Africa that prevails. Kahastok talk 17:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You just blew my mind. I've never considered the ground where WP:ENGVAR meats WP:COMMONNAME. Largoplazo (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the article being in South African English would make more sense to be headed up with a South African English dominant common name. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The titling of the Ganges article argues against that. MOS:COMMONALITY --Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point, yes - but MOS:COMMONALITY is under MOS:ENGVAR. Point is perhaps that MOS:ENGVAR applies, and so the fact that the article is written in South African English is significant, particularly given the argument that SAE favours the Swaziland, which is likely to be known more generally. Kahastok talk 13:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got a little confused at what the exact positions were here, but the point is still interesting. --Khajidha (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll start a RM myself as soon as it's clear whether Eswatini or eSwatini (well, ESwatini for technical reasons) should be the new page name. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. While I lean toward eSwatini given its frequency in news sources, I don't oppose Eswatini. Picking one and adding a sentence clarifying the issue would suffice. What's increasingly clear is that Swaziland is no longer commonly used by reliable sources, while either capitalization of eSwatini appears reasonable. Pdxuser (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, there is no problem with the use of the spelling of "eSwatini" to describe this nation, just that the spelling of "Eswatini" is the 'official' spelling when using the formal name of "Kingdom of Eswatini" (based on government sources). The use of "eSwatini" when spelling this word alone is already FAR more common in English than "Eswatini", due to the influence of isiSwazi, which also uses the spelling of "eSwatini". Why the Swazi government decided to spell things this way seems to me to be a bizarre decision. However, regardless, we now HAVE to use "Kingdom of Eswatini" when using the official name and can use "eSwatini" for informal use. Despite all this, I am still of the opinion that the use of the term "Swaziland" is more common and prevalent overall in English than either spelling of "eSwatini". - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of relieving people who have this article on their watchlist from relentless pinging over this question alone, I propose, given the consensus recorded on June 23 not to move the article, that, on the model of Talk:Czechoslovakia, a reasonable moratorium be imposed for six months from then (that is, until December 23), allowing any new discussion on the subject in the interim to be summarily curtailed, either in a collapsible box or by archiving it. There's no need to discuss this constantly. There's no urgency to change the title of the article the very day conditions may be consistent with doing so under the guidelines. Reconsideration at regular intervals suffices. Largoplazo (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel the June RM was out of order, being less than two months after the previous RM. Frankly, so was the instant one in April, since the WP:NAMECHANGES criteria clearly hadn't been met yet. But I don't think we should delay the otherwise timely consideration of the proposal because of these premature actions. Six months from the name change seems reasonable. Pdxuser (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave this here ... ... - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NAMECHANGES follows reliable sources, not public awareness: "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." Pdxuser (talk)−
 * That would go counter to the Naturalness clause of the five criteria in WP:CRITERIA. Possibly the Recognizability clause too... Either way, I think it is hard to argue that "Swaziland" is not the most prevalent term used in common speak at the moment, regardless of sources. This may change in future, but for the moment wikipedia should not preempt that change. I will remind you that the very title of WP:COMMONNAME is "Use commonly recognizable names". - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't just stating my opinion, I was quoting the WP:NAMECHANGES policy:
 * "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match."
 * And WP:COMMONNAME's actual text specifies that commonality is "determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources." The reason there's a special rule for name changes is because it is different from choosing a name for an established subject, where a popular common name has long existed alongside an obscure formal name. Here, both the formal name and common name, as determined by reliable sources as per policy, has changed. If the general public who rarely thinks of this country is uninformed of the fact that the country has changed its name, Wikipedia doesn't have to wait until a new generation of schoolchildren has learned it, or wait until a major international crisis breaks out so that the global public actually sees what the news has been calling the country for years. Wikipedia can read the news today and see that the common name used by reliable sources has already changed. Pdxuser (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I am fully aware of the point that you are making. The point that I am making is that, in this case, the reliance of WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME on sourced references runs directly counter to the Naturalness clause, and somewhat counter to the Recognizability clause of the five points. These five points are the stated goals/outcome of WP:COMMONNAME, which is thus functionally at odds with its own goals that would otherwise take precedence. It also runs somewhat counter to logic and good common sense about the overall use of a name, because speakers using said name will not universally adopt a new name simply because they have now been instructed to.
 * For instance, if I now proclaim that everyone start referring to you now as "Bob McBob" instead of "Pdxuser", and I get 20 of my buddies to come on here and start referring to you as "Bob McBob" and to make many blogs, reports, etc. all over the internet about user: "Bob McBob", does that make your name "Bob McBob"? No! of course not! because the majority of people will still call you "Pdxuser" despite numerous pages and pages of text referring to you only as "Bob McBob". (Incidentally this would, I'm sure, be counter to your liking, but we don't always like the names people refer to us by). Just see the Czech Republic/Czechia situation, many Czechs really don't like the "Czech Republic" name, but "Czechia" is just not popular in English. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In summary, I am asking that the spirit of the concept of WP:COMMONNAME be followed, not the strict mechanisations within. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't think that's a very valid comparison. IMO, a more accurate analogy to make would be something more like this: imagine there's a Wikipedia page, Pdxuser, written about "Pdxuser". One day, "Pdxuser" legally changes their name to "Bob McBob" and announces this name change to the world. You and your 20 pals start referring to "Bob McBob" (formerly "Pdxuser") as "Bob McBob", in accordance with "Bob McBob"'s official name change. In addition, it seems that the majority of people are beginning to refer to "Bob McBob" as "Bob McBob" rather than "Pdxuser". Should the title of "Bob McBob"'s Wikipedia page not be changed from Pdxuser to Bob McBob in such a situation? Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, admittedly it was not the best example. That is what happens when you transition back to working nightshifts again. Your brain starts to come with with wierd stuff. - Wiz9999 (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A person (like "Pdxuser" aka "Bob McBob") is not a country and Swaziland is not a person. The two situations can have very different outcomes in language usage. --Khajidha (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should wait until this is cleared up: https://mg.co.za/article/2018-08-28-swazilands-name-change-challenged-in-court --Khajidha (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That court case could impact the 'official' name of the country, "Kingdom of Eswatini", but the wikipedia page is listed under the common name. Thus it should, theoretically, not really bear much impact on this discussion. However, it is hard to deny the impact that the recent official name change has had, since, prior to the announcement made by the monarch, the name "eSwatini" was not really heard at large by the English speaking world. It can't hurt now to wait till that case has been resolved before continuing this discussion. But, take note, that the case is in large part an exercise on the limits of the monarch's executive powers, do not expect much to come from it under this current absolutist leader. - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How long will we go on calling this country the wrong name, with no indication when this lawsuit may exhaust its appeals and end, let alone whether the name will ever actually go back to Swaziland? Another year, maybe? The benefit of Wikipedia is that we can make edits as need be. It's not like we have to spend money printing new editions of encyclopedias if facts change. Pdxuser (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Define "wrong". Lots of countries have names for themselves that aren't what we call them. Ever hear of Hellas, Suomi, or Zhonghua? Or do you call them the "wrong" names of Greece, Finland, and China?--Khajidha (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are not the English names of Finland and China, Finland and China are. eSwatini, where English is an official language, is no longer Swaziland, according to the government, major international bodies, and major news outlets. Swaziland is the wrong name because it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's guidelines anymore. This has been exhaustively debated elsewhere, let's end this over-long part of the thread. Pdxuser (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * An alternate is never 'wrong' as you say, it is simply an additional way to describe the same thing. Both terms "Swaziland" and "eSwatini" are valid. The only real question is which one is dominant/takes precedence, and thus should be utilized here on wikipedia. Both names are accurate in describing the country, as both are in use in English currently. There is nothing inherently wrong with one group of people using one term to describe something, while another group of people use another term to describe it. These sorts of variations can happen all the time in languages, it does not necessarily mean any term is any 'better' or 'worse' than any other. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It's nice that the governments of China and Finland use those names, but not really important. Those names predate said governments and are used, not because those governments say to use them but because the English speaking world says to. 2) Usage the Swazi government is really only relevant to that government, usage by international bodies is only binding within those bodies (which is why we don't have articles titled "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Taiwan, Province of China". As for major news outlets, usage is still heavily weighted towards Swaziland. Thus, it is debatable whether Swaziland complies with Wikipedia guidelines. --Khajidha (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to see the case that would be made that common usage has changed. I think it has been argued that some significant news outlets have changed, but I haven't it collected and put succinctly and I remain to be convinced of a change in common English usage. Kahastok talk 13:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. If even considering a challenge like this to the king's authority is within the court's jurisdiction, then why does our article describe the country as an absolute monarchy? Largoplazo (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Because the monarchy has the apparent supreme power in all executive, judicial, and legislative matters, and the right to overturn any law passed by the parliament. I believe that will classify the government as an absolute monarchy, even if it does have an elected parliament. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that a court, over which he has apparent supreme power, is challenging something he's done, with the implication that it could choose to nullify his action, makes the absoluteness of his power less than apparent. Largoplazo (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is why the court case is so significant, it could change the political situation in the country completely. In many ways the court case is more about the challenge to power than it is about the actual contents of the case, ie. the naming issue. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * International organizations such as United Nations (UN), OHCHR, or ILO, now use the new name. Regardless of what some private companies (such as Google Maps) use, the new name is official. https://www.un.int/eswatini/ https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Data/Country-Information/id/164-Eswatini https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/africaregion/pages/szindex.aspx https://www.ilo.org/addisababa/countries-covered/swaziland/lang--en/index.htm The page title should be with the new name. Topjur01 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, before making a point at the bottom of a mile-long discussion, to see whether that point has already been raised a dozen times and answered. What's official isn't Wikipedia's standard for naming. Largoplazo (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)