Talk:Eswatini/Archive 4

Replacing mentions of "Swaziland" with "Eswatini" in all articles
Should people be making mass changes of every instance or mentions of "Swaziland" to "Eswatini", in all articles now? [Edit: the question is not about mass find & replace without checking.] If so, should there be some sort of guidance about how this is done? I'm concerned about straight replacements that don't explain the name change, and/or leave mixed usages, that could be confusing. For example most references which talk about Swaziland, names of institutions, or usage of "Swaziland" in other places in the same article, and so on. For example, here are some edits illustrating various levels of things that could go wrong, from somewhat confusing to totally wrong (helpfully provided by a now-blocked IP sock):


 * Special:Diff/868805429/prev - Leaves no mention anywhere of "Swaziland", which could be confusing to people not aware of the name change.
 * Special:Diff/868804686/prev - The same, except there are citations that talk about Swaziland, also confusing if the article doesn't mention it.
 * Special:Diff/868805478/prev - Changes "Eswatini (Swaziland)" to just "Eswatini". Why remove it?
 * Special:Diff/868806054/prev, Special:Diff/868808431/prev - Changes the country name to "Eswatini" in the lead sentence, but leaves "Swaziland" throughout the article.
 * Special:Diff/868806542/prev - Changes the historical former name "Swaziland Agricultural College" to "Eswatini Agricultural College", which never existed.
 * Special:Diff/868806816/prev - Changes the title of a cited book.

For a start, what about recommending the use of eg. "Swaziland (now Eswatini)", or "Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)", or something similar, for first mention in most articles? Or just "Eswatini (Swaziland)" as I see in eg. Template:Transport in Swaziland? And what about usage in the rest of the body? --IamNotU (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question is "no, people should not be making mass changes of every instance or mention of "Swaziland" to "Eswatini". Every change needs to be checked by the editor. (Quotes and titles of works are two more examples of where changes should not be made.) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. What do you think about some default way of phrasing or explaining it, particularly with the first mention of Eswatini in an article? Would something like "Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)" be generally helpful? Not necessarily mandatory, but as a rule of thumb... it seems to be fairly common in news articles, etc. --IamNotU (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I feel like we shouldn't have to explain this. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that there is some objection to "Eswatini (formerly known as Swaziland)", in the talk page above and in the article, where the current consensus seems to be "also known as Swaziland" rather than "formerly". --IamNotU (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * My response to this problem is "context is all." One of the issues with Wikipedia is that the editors of 2018 are dealing with current affairs in real time, whilst so much of what has been written for the past tense. It would be historically questionable to copy-and-paste the new name for old. It would read and look like some form of hasty historic car shooting, with the new name scattered everywhere across time (and space) in a panicked response to changes in circumstance. Historic content does not require the 2018 versions of Wikipedia editors rushing to make edits. My compromise solution is somewhere around 's response. Where and when context allows, use "(now known as Eswantini)". Where and when context allows use "the then-known as Swaziland". Where and when context allows use "(known as Eswantini since 2018)". Blanket solutions often smother debate, I find. Let's find what works across the Wikipedia, rather than searching for the quickest one hat for all heads solution. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Eswatini" and "Swaziland" are ALTERNATIVE NAMES of each other. Both are still acceptable for use, but the context of their use will determine which term is more appropriate (just "Eswatini" or just "Swaziland"). The use of "formerly known as Swaziland" is not correct, as it is STILL known as Swaziland to many people around the world. It would be more accurate to say; "Eswatiini (also known as Swaziland)", "the then-known as Swaziland", "Swaziland (known as Eswantini since 2018)", or just "Eswatini (Swaziland)". The situation is now very similar to the situation between "Myanmar" and "Burma", see those articles for guidance on how to handle these articles. It is however correct to say; "The Kingdom of Eswatini, formerly known as the Kingdom of Swaziland, since these "Kingdom of" names are WP:OFFICIAL names and thus only one can be accepted for use. For the most part, the only reason why Wikipedia has now adopted "Eswatini" over "Swaziland" is because most credible media outlets have switched to the "Eswatini" term. - Wiz9999 (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I would agree that "Eswatini (formerly known as Swaziland)" is an unnecessarily strong a statement, as it is still widely known that way. I would rather avoid the phrase "known as", as being not completely verifiable, including "Eswatini (also known as Swaziland)" or "Swaziland (since 2018 known as Eswatini)". I would have less trouble with "Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)", or "Swaziland (since 2018 officially Eswatini)" as I think it's not unreasonable to say it was formerly named Swaziland, but is no longer, even though the old name is still often used. I also think that it's part of the official name change, since the decree contained the provision: "Reference in any written law or international agreement or legal document to Swaziland shall be read and construed as reference to Eswatini", and since institutions are being changed to eg. Eswatini University. It would be very difficult to argue that the official position is that, although the official name is "Kingdom of Eswatini", going forward either "Eswatini" or "Swaziland" can be used freely.
 * However, I understand that "official name" is not the same as "common name" for Wikipedia, and in terms of the latter, I'd say both are still ok to use. In other words, there is no pressing need to go through every article changing every mention of Swaziland to Eswatini. Nevertheless, there will be people like the IP above who get it into their heads that this should be done, and proceed to do it. So there should be some guidance. I think when changes are made, both names should be mentioned. Sometimes it will depend on context, but for example there are hundreds of simple cases such as stub place articles like Simunye, where I think it would be helpful to agree on a consistent presentation in the lead sentence or first use, and that's the main point of my question. I think I would lean toward "Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)", as it gives more explanation, but "Eswatini (Swaziland)" might also be ok. Both are fairly widely used already by the media and other governments' websites. "Eswatini (prior to 2018 Swaziland)" might be another option, or maybe "Swaziland (since 2018 officially Eswatini)" if the rest of the article continued to use Swaziland. I think each article should be self-consistent, and not have mixed usage in the body unless there's a special case like historical names etc.
 * I do think the situation is quite different from Myanmar/Burma though. There's no international opposition to the name change, whereas it's still eg. official UK and US policy to use "Burma" thirty years later. Even within the country, although there are complaints about the process not being democratic, and more so about unnecessary costs, there doesn't seem to be significant opposition to the name change in itself. So although there will be a transition period of indeterminate length, during which there will be mixed usage, I'd say the change in that sense is a fait accompli. --IamNotU (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)" is NOT correct. By leaving out the "officially named" wording you are implying that the name Swaziland no longer occurs in new sources. This is demonstrably false. Use Eswatini for events going forward and for inclusive retrospection (such as "the history of Eswatini stretches back to") and Swaziland for historical events. It's not complicated, folks. --Khajidha (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm actually finding it a little compliated to come up with a concise way of representing the fact that there was an official name change, which seems to have been formally accepted by other countries, without implying that the old name is no longer in use. "Eswatini (also known as Swaziland)" seems problematic, also because leaving out "officially named" wording implies that there is no difference in status between them, or that some other countries dispute the name, which is also demonstrably false. "Swaziland (now officially Eswatini)" isn't bad, but the other direction is more difficult, "Eswatini (official name, formerly/previously/until 2018 Swaziland)"...?? Could you suggest something for the lead sentence of, for example, Simunye?
 * Simunye (population 5,633) is a sugar mill town on the lowveld in eastern Swaziland.
 * Simunye (population 5,633) is a sugar mill town on the lowveld in eastern Swaziland (officially Eswatini).
 * Simunye (population 5,633) is a sugar mill town on the lowveld in eastern Eswatini.
 * Simunye (population 5,633) is a sugar mill town on the lowveld in eastern Eswatini (Swaziland).
 * Simunye (population 5,633) is a sugar mill town on the lowveld in eastern Eswatini (formerly Swaziland). [Edit: added for completeness]
 * Something else?
 * If you'd choose 1. or 3., how would you explain the usage of both Swaziland (in the body) and Eswatini (in templates and categories)? --IamNotU (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an article on a current town, change all uses of "Swaziland" in the article to "Eswatini". Only if something historical is mentioned would you need to say Swaziland (now officially Eswatini). Again, you are making this way more complicated than it is. --Khajidha (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PS - the "Royal Swaziland Sugar Corporation's name will not need to be either changed or explained.--Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PPS - I've fixed that article. Categories and templates can be handled later. --Khajidha (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In most articles, in most cases, you won't need to mention the name change. Just use the proper name based on the guidelines I mentioned above.--Khajidha (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , would you mind expanding a little on the reasoning behind your guidelines? Are they based on some existing Wikipedia guideline or practice? To be honest, I don't think I agree. "Eswatini (formerly [known as] Swaziland)" is ordinarily used by many reliable sources, eg. Reuters, the US Law Library of Congress , the Canadian government , the Sydney Morning Herald , the BBC , , , Deutsche Welle , , the South China Morning Post , Amnesty International , and many others. The Washington Post has used "Swaziland (now eSwatini)" . It seems to me a brief explanatory note by default would be useful and fitting. In the case of the Simunye article, it would help to contextualize the existence of the Royal Swaziland Sugar Corporation in the town, as I don't follow why it would not need to be explained. That article happens to not cite any sources, but for the vast majority of those that do, they will say "Swaziland", and again a brief note would help to explain the context. --IamNotU (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need to explain it because there is a handy link to Eswatini for anyone who is confused. "Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)" is the kind of clunky writing that has to be employed in a print source, it isn't needed here. I don't see why you would need to explain the RSSC's name in the article. It isn't relevant where that name came from, it's just the company that is involved. It could have been the Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company and it would make no difference to that article. --Khajidha (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PPS - I've fixed that article. Categories and templates can be handled later. --Khajidha (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In most articles, in most cases, you won't need to mention the name change. Just use the proper name based on the guidelines I mentioned above.--Khajidha (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , would you mind expanding a little on the reasoning behind your guidelines? Are they based on some existing Wikipedia guideline or practice? To be honest, I don't think I agree. "Eswatini (formerly [known as] Swaziland)" is ordinarily used by many reliable sources, eg. Reuters, the US Law Library of Congress , the Canadian government , the Sydney Morning Herald , the BBC , , , Deutsche Welle , , the South China Morning Post , Amnesty International , and many others. The Washington Post has used "Swaziland (now eSwatini)" . It seems to me a brief explanatory note by default would be useful and fitting. In the case of the Simunye article, it would help to contextualize the existence of the Royal Swaziland Sugar Corporation in the town, as I don't follow why it would not need to be explained. That article happens to not cite any sources, but for the vast majority of those that do, they will say "Swaziland", and again a brief note would help to explain the context. --IamNotU (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need to explain it because there is a handy link to Eswatini for anyone who is confused. "Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)" is the kind of clunky writing that has to be employed in a print source, it isn't needed here. I don't see why you would need to explain the RSSC's name in the article. It isn't relevant where that name came from, it's just the company that is involved. It could have been the Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company and it would make no difference to that article. --Khajidha (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need to explain it because there is a handy link to Eswatini for anyone who is confused. "Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)" is the kind of clunky writing that has to be employed in a print source, it isn't needed here. I don't see why you would need to explain the RSSC's name in the article. It isn't relevant where that name came from, it's just the company that is involved. It could have been the Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company and it would make no difference to that article. --Khajidha (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikilinks are not a substitute for clear writing. Wikipedia articles are often printed out, or the text copied to other websites where the wikilinks don't function. Also, someone on mobile for example shouldn't have to load the entire Eswatini article, just to figure out why some smaller article has an inexplicable mixed use of "Eswatini" and "Swaziland". MOS:Internal links says: Finally, even if they do load it, the Eswatini article currently doesn't even attempt to explain why it has two names, until several pages down, near the end of the History section! [edit, see below]. This is despite the fact that this is the biggest story about the country in many years, and the reason that many people may hear about it for the first time. Numerous editors have tried to add the information, but all have been reverted. I can't understand the refusal of a couple of editors to allow adding some kind of simple, concise explanation, both in the lead of this article and in the text of others, to an otherwise confusing situation - with dozens if not hundreds of articles still having unexplained mixed usage. --IamNotU (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC) ''[Edit: the article now has a short explanation in the second paragraph. I still think the fact that the name was recently changed should be mentioned somehow in the lead.]'' --IamNotU (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
 * Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
 * The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.
 * "Also known as Swaziland" seems like totally reasonable wording to me. PrussianOwl (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shoehorning the whole "well, it used to be called this, but recently changed to this" thing into the lead is putting undue weight on what is really a trivial matter. In most other articles it is nearly entirely irrelevant. In this article, simply saying that it is also known by this other name is sufficient for the lead. It has to be in there so that people will know that they are at the right article, but details can be better explained further down. --Khajidha (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the name of the country, of the subject of the article, is a trivial matter, or "nearly entirely irrelevant". It doesn't seem like common sense to me. There are still many articles that have mixed usage, without explaining it, and would be very confusing to readers if they didn't already know why. This is going to be one of the most common questions about Eswatini/Swaziland. Even if we accept that we avoid some kind of simple, brief explanation in those articles that the name changed in 2018, and rely on the user clicking through to this article if they're confused - which I don't accept, as I explained above - this article should answer their question as quickly as possible. According to the principle of least astonishment, they shouldn't have to launch into reading about its geography, languange, and the entire history of the country, just to understand this basic fact about what it's called. --IamNotU (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In other articles, we should simply make sure that the usage is appropriate to the focus of the article. Historical articles should use "Swaziland", current events should be described using "Eswatini". Both of which would be linked here, where the opening paragraph helpfully says that they are the same place. That is all the context that is necessary for most purposes. --Khajidha (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I can finally articulate my biggest problem with this. You have said (in several places) that the name change is relevant "at present". That is recentism. Yes, the news about this place is mostly about the name change, but this article isn't in a newspaper, it's in an encyclopedia. In the big picture, in an article about the country as a whole throughout all its history, this name change is piddly stuff. It is giving far too much weight to this to go into great detail about it in the lead. --Khajidha (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * [We're overlapping with, but I'll continue here anyway...] It's correct that recent events don't go in the lead just because they're recent. If Eswatini hosted the Olympics, we don't put that in the lead, even though that would be a pretty big story (though if it was the Winter Olympics, I'd say WP:IAR would apply...) But this is something different. It's not about a particular timely event, the declaration of the name change by the king, but a very basic static fact about the country: what is its name? That's always the very first thing in the article. "Am I in the right article? What's going on here? Why do I see it referred to by two different names?" I think it's likely to be confusing to readers if there's no context given, or if they have to read two long paragraphs about geography, population, and the history of the country, before the penny drops. The fact that the name change was recent makes it all the more likely to be confusing, but this will continue for years to come. We should avoid confusing the reader. Using "formerly known as" neatly solves the problem, and seems to be most commonly used by other reliable sources. In my opinion it doesn't give the impression that the name is no longer commonly used, unlike "historically known as", which is used for Istanbul–Constantinople. But it's not the only way to solve the problem.
 * The usage in the Myanmar article of "officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and also known as Burma", with no further explanation in the lead section, has been given as a model for the current article. But I have the same criticism of that, and for examle if you look at Britannica's article, it uses "also called Burma" but the "formerly official" status is explained immediately in the second sentence. We could follow their usage of "previously called Kingdom of Swaziland", and leave out "also known as Swaziland" as redundant, since it's normal to expect that a place may often still be referred to by a former official name. Using "also known as Swaziland, the official name until 2018" is a possible solution; you may recall your own comment about this wording used in the Mumbai article, that the "wording is quite clear that Mumbai is the current official name and that Bombay is the former official name which still maintains a high degree of recognition and a fair degree of use. There would seem to be no reason to change it." I think it's debatable whether there's a definitive consensus to use "also known as Swaziland" rather than "formerly known as", looking at the discussion above and the numerous editors who have attempted to change it (by the way, I never edit logged out or with other accounts). But even the strongest supporters of "also known as" have tried to find some other way to indicate in a concise way that it's formerly the official name, and currently a common name. There is absolutely not a consensus to not mention it in the lead, because of undue weight or recentism. The number of reverts related to this is starting to look to me a little like a slow-motion edit war going on. Any other ideas or suggestions about how to move forward? --IamNotU (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of Highveld and Lowveld
,, you have both reverted the edits capitalizing Highveld and Lowveld in the second paragraph, made by and me. This causes inconsistency, as you may note that later in the article, in the Geography section, the terms are capitalized as they should be. Before making my edit, I was careful to check several reliable sources, and found that in relation to Eswatini/Swaziland, they are proper nouns and are always capitalized. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica, the Government of Eswatini, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Qatar Embassy in Swaziland, and every other source I found. Could you please correct this error? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted a different change, I didn't even notice these words.--Khajidha (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A search of book sources shows that usage is basically split between the lowercase and the uppercase version when it's mentioned in the context of Swaziland. As such, per MOS:CAPS ("only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia"), we should default to lowercase. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the reply. I still find it odd that it's not capitalized in the lead section, but it's capitalized later in the article. It seems to me that it's not just a "word or phrase", but a proper name, the Lowveld at least is described as the Veld, and the Highveld as the (Eswatini/Swaziland) Highveld. I suppose it's not worth debating further though, if we don't agree... --IamNotU (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"formerly known as Swaziland"
In the first line of the article head I changed the "or Swaziland" to "formerly Swaziland" but got reverted by someone saying "the fact that we've switched doesn't mean everyone else has". Now the problem with that is that the country is now, officially, de jure, known as Eswatini which makes Swaziland officially its former name. If here on Wikipedia (a major website) we don't make that mention, it will only slow down the further people's awareness. This isn't the name of a company/brand or something, I would understand, but this is regarding a whole official country. --Wq639 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment For the sake of accuracy, I'd rather say "formerly known as Swaziland"/"previously known in English as Swaziland" than "formerly Swaziland" because they've always been weSwatini/eSwatini in their own language. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 01:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * EDIT: The article Mumbai has a nice example that could be used here too: "Mumbai, (...also known as Bombay, the official name until 1995) is the capital city of the Indian state of..." --Wq639 (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that. It could be "Eswatini, (...also known as Swaziland, the English name until 2018) ..." Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The current formulation is the best, listing the two variants without qualification. It's inaccurate to say its the former name, or the English name until 2018 only. It remains a valid name used in many sources, albeit not the most common name. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding my own vote for the change, I must remind the original poster that "officially" has little to no bearing on Wikipedia's naming policies or the descriptive prose we write in the articles. This is because we follow common usage. Yes, most quality sources have changed to using Eswatini, but others have not and the common usage by the public definitely hasn't. This is not a case like Iran or Sri Lanka where you only encounter the older name (Persia or Ceylon) in the context of history. Modern sources, talking about current events, are still split. Eswatini is, thus, still "also known as" Swaziland. As for a "company brand or something", I would actually expect those changes to go much faster as there is a lot more legislation and regulation involved (business licenses and such). There are, thus, legal concerns even in countries other than the one the company originates in. With country name changes, the only legal encumbrances are those on the country itself and the standard diplomatic protocols that cover international relations. Every country in the world could have government policies to follow the name change in official sources (treaties, international communiques, and such) but those would not be binding on the populace of many (if not all) of those countries. For example, the US uses "Kyiv" in all diplomatic releases but does not (and, indeed, cannot) force such usage on the media in the US. --Khajidha (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment A difference should be made between English and native language names for locations - Example is Japan who's actual name is Nippon. I am chaining the name back to Swaziland and suggest that a Swazi language page call the country by its Swazi name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanerasmus2006 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I was the one who reverted, and my edit summary makes the point, I think. Swaziland has not completely disappeared as a modern name for the state, and it is not (yet) correct to describe it as a former name.  This may change in the future, of course. Kahastok talk 18:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "Swaziland" is used in important secondary taxonomic databases used to reference the distribution of plants and animals; it will be some time (if ever) before these change, so it's certainly not yet a "former" name in English . Peter coxhead (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But it is the former official name. Shoud simply be noted as such. "Also know as Swaziland, its former official name"--Aréat (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * When noting that it is a "former name in English" I was specifying that it was a former official English name (similar to Czech Republic -> Czechia, but Swaziland -> Eswatini seemed to catch on much quicker.) "Swaziland" was never the official Swazi/Swati name for the independent state. It already was weSwatini/eSwatini. They didn't change the official name in their own language. Simply noting that Swaziland was the former official name without a caveat of "in English" would mislead readers into thinking that they referred to it as Swaziland in Swazi, which would be incorrect. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 05:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good note, I agree with that. --Wq639 (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like some more input about the Mumbai example, can it be suitable for this article here? --Wq639 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I supported the move to Eswatini, but the article lead should say "also known as Swaziland", at least for now, as it is still also known as Swaziland. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Swaziland is most certainly NOT a "former" WP:COMMONNAME for the country. It is still a common name in use by many English speakers around the globe. Both "Eswatini" and "Swaziland" are ALTERNATIVE NAMES of each other. These terms are both in use and are both STILL valid ways to refer to the country. Only the "WP:OFFICIAL" name of "Kingdom of Swaziland" is a "former" name (now obsolete), with the new "official" name being the 'new' term "Kingdom of Eswatini" (making it the only acceptable way to "officially" refer to this country). However, within Wikipedia, we must use WP:COMMONNAMES in title headings, but article's should always contain other commonly used alternate names in their lead. To list Swaziland as simply a "former" name would absolutely be incorrect! In fact "Swaziland" is still MORE commonly used in everyday spoken English than "Eswatini". Despite this however, "Eswatini" has been widely adopted by large media outlets for some reason. See the following for evidence of what I am saying:. I still have not changed my mind that "Swaziland" is not the common name for this country. However, I accept that sources have changed to the "Eswatini" common term regardless, which is why editors here have voted to follow the trend set by the RS's and use "Eswatini" instead of the much harder to prove common spoken English term "Swaziland". To list "Swaziland" as a "former" name would be making the article have a non-WP:Neutral point of view bias against a commonly used term used by the majority of English speakers. I suggest that all commentors here that are advocating for the addition of the word "former" have a long proper read of the following wikipedia guideline: WP:NCGN. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a former name, but a former official name, and thus being called as such. Using Swaziland instead of Eswatini nowadays is akin to using Bombay instead of Munbay, or Constantinople instead of Istanbul. It's a common second name, but not an official one. The first sentence of the page say no more, no less. Cordially--Aréat (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, "Kingdom of Swaziland" is the former official name. Note that this is different from "Swaziland" which is a common name that can still be used. In the same way "Kingdom of Eswatini" is not the same as "Eswatini", the former is now the official name, the latter is a common name that can be used as an alternate to "Swaziland". Using Swaziland in the place of Eswatini is absolutely NOT the same as Bombay vs. Mumbai, or Constantinople vs. Istanbul. Just look at the respective search comparisons:, , . - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then let's use "from its former official English name"--Aréat (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that would go counter to the following Wikipedia guideline: MOS:ALTNAME, former official names do not matter as much as current common names. Note; the situation is now akin to that of the Myanmar vs. Burma naming issue. - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See also, the following image from the same guideline: File:Article title versus first sentence (new).png - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to note my support for 's comments. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you @. Sometimes it feels like I am the only one being logical on this talk page. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of comments above such as: I would like to point out that, as far as I understand, the constitution of Swaziland is written only in English. [Edit: apparently there was a 2004 siSwati translation of the draft constitution for discussion, but as far as I can tell, the official law was only passed in English] It begins:
 * "For the sake of accuracy, I'd rather say "formerly known as Swaziland"/"previously known in English as Swaziland" than "formerly Swaziland" because they've always been weSwatini/eSwatini in their own language"
 * "Eswatini, (...also known as Swaziland, the English name until 2018) ..."
 * "No, "Kingdom of Swaziland" is the former official name. Note that this is different from "Swaziland" which is a common name that can still be used."
 * "'Swaziland' was never the official Swazi/Swati name for the independent state. It already was weSwatini/eSwatini. They didn't change the official name in their own language. Simply noting that Swaziland was the former official name without a caveat of "in English" would mislead readers into thinking that they referred to it as Swaziland in Swazi, which would be incorrect."
 * An Act to provide for the constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland, 2005.
 * ENACTED by the King and the Parliament of Swaziland
 * CHAPTER I
 * THE KINGDOM AND ITS CONSTITUTION
 * The Kingdom and its territory
 * 1. (1) Swaziland is a unitary, sovereign, democratic Kingdom.
 * (2) The territory of Swaziland comprises all the land that immediately before the 6th September 1968 comprised the former Protected State of Swaziland together with such additional land as may from time to time be declared to form part of Swaziland in accordance with international law.
 * The Constitution
 * 2. (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of Swaziland and if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
 * 2. (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of Swaziland and if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

The country is referred to as "Swaziland" over a hundred times in the constitution. You can interpret this as you like, but it's clear to me that "the Kingdom of Swaziland" and "Swaziland" are synonyms that are both officially used in the constitution as the name of the country. Swaziland is a Kingdom, and the Kingdom is Swaziland. I think the characterization of "Swaziland" as some kind of colloquial, unofficial, alternate, optional, "in English" name is misleading. Although eSwatini may have been used when speaking in siSwati, and it did appear on the passport, it was not the official name of the country. That was the whole point of the change! The official, legal name, as provided in the constitution, was "the Kingdom of Swaziland" as well as simply "Swaziland". The act known as "the Declaration of Change of Swaziland Name Notice" changed the Swaziland name to "Eswatini", officially making "Swaziland" its former official name. The idea that "Swaziland" and "Eswatini" are currently equally valid alternate names in all respects, because neither is or ever was official, is too much of a stretch. Many people still use the former name out of habit, but it is still, officially, the former name, and (unlike Myanmar/Burma) no one seriously disputes that.

I understand that the "official" name has no bearing on what Wikipedia calls the common name is, which is whatever people actually use. Saying "'Swaziland' is the former common name" would be incorrect, as it's still probably more common than the official name. But I don't buy the argument that "Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)" would be interpreted that way - that nobody ever uses that name anymore - by a reasonable person. It would be interpreted as being about the actual official name, which recently changed, and the former official name. This is supported by the fact that "Eswatini (formerly [known as] Swaziland)" is the term most commonly used by a wide variety of reliable sources, which is the gold standard for what Wikipedia should use. We can all make elaborate arguments, but in the end if we don't follow the sources, it's not NPOV. I'm copying a quick list I made from the section below: Reuters, the US Law Library of Congress , the Canadian government , the Sydney Morning Herald , the BBC , , , Deutsche Welle , , the South China Morning Post , Amnesty International , and many others. The Washington Post has used "Swaziland (now eSwatini)". Encyclopaedia Britannica uses "Eswatini, officially Kingdom of Eswatini, Swati Umbuso weSwatini, previously called Kingdom of Swaziland".

On the other hand, while the phrase "also known as Swaziland" is not factually incorrect in the one sense that some people - even officials - still use the name, it may falsely give the impression that it is still considered an official name, or an Anglicized name like Spain/España, or that there is some international opposition or dispute about it, as in the case of Myanmar/Burma, and that Eswatini has not been fully accepted, which is simply not the case. But most importantly, I was not able to find any recent usage of "also known as Swaziland" in reliable sources, and all occurences seem to be quotations of Wikipedia. We should be following the trend, not setting it. --IamNotU (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with the others in the "Repacing mentions of "Swaziland" with "Eswatini" in all articles" section you started below. You are making this WAY more complicated than it is. So I'm going to show you how simple it needs to be. For more than 90% of Swaziland/Eswatini articles out there, the following will be fine to use:


 * "Eswatini"
 * "Eswatini (Swaziland)"
 * "Swaziland"                 - For most historical articles, (e.g.battles, treaties, etc.):


 * Your insistence on the use of all these other qualifiers ("formerly known as", "now officially", etc.) is not needed. It is counter to the following part of the MOS:LEADSENTENCE guideline:
 * "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."
 * Meaning, we do not need to mention the naming dispute in EVERY article. Every use of "Eswatini" is not always going to be right, it is not always going to go without review. Wikipedia articles are living documents constantly going through revision. Thus it is possible to make an edit and come back to it later with a better way of saying something. As I said above, >90% will be fine with just saying something simple. Will this be true for EVERY article, no, but will it be fine for MOST of them, yes, context is everything.


 * Additionally, I strongly disagree with your claim that "Eswatini has not been fully accepted, which is simply not the case." I do not see evidence that the name has gone un-challenged, and is without dispute. People have been challenging the change on this discussion page all the time (including myself). If you look at the following search comparison, you will in fact see that "Swaziland" is MORE used by common English speakers than "ESwatini". Also, there is an internal court case at the moment within Swaziland over the 'official' name change to "Kingdom of Eswatini". I am now of the opinion that a "naming dispute" article needs to be written and linked within this article to explain the situation to readers, as the search trend I mentioned has not seen any changes since "Eswatini" was first introduced to English use. - Wiz9999 (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I haven't insisted on any particular form. On the contrary I've put forward multiple possibilities - including no qualifiers - and asked for policy-based opinions and debate about how best to deal with the name transition, with concrete examples of different circumstances. I've also done a survey of what reliable sources say, as required by WP:NPOV, and you really can't critcize me for that! A number of sources did use "Eswatini (Swaziland)" (mostly sports-related), but the majority used some variation of "Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)". Thus I remain unconvinced that "formerly Swaziland" somehow implies, or could be reasonably interpreted as meaning, that the name has completely fallen out of common use. I don't think that's a justified blanket argument for disallowing a descriptive phrase that is ordinarily and regularly used by a broad range of reliable, authoritative sources.
 * Again, I'm not insisting that a certain formulation must be used, but I do want to suggest that there's not a consensus against using "formerly Swaziland" in general, if my input is considered. Having said that, I still definitely feel that the lead paragraph should indicate somehow that there has been a recent name change, as this is a basic and very significant fact. From the way it reads currently, one could easily get the impression that it has been "Eswatini" for a very long time, and that for some unspecified and unimportant reason it has an alternate "nickname". Maybe in five or ten years it will be less relevant, but it's likely that a significant number of people coming to the article will be very interested in this information, and surprised if they don't find it until several pages down at the end of the History section. I think this is an actual problem, not just me making things complicated, so I'll continue to suggest ways that this could be indicated. For example, the Chennai article uses "also known by its former name Madras". That doesn't imply that "Madras" is no longer used as an alternate or common name - it is, and several citations are given.
 * I understand that your position is that there is a "naming dispute", and it's true that we strongly disagree with each other about that. The name change was immediately accepted without controversy by all other countries and international bodies. Nobody is arguing with you that "Swaziland" is not still commonly used, that is a straw man you can drop. What I don't see is widespread evidence that anyone is disputing or refusing to use the new official name, particularly since it's the name that people have been using in siSwati all along. Even the laywer who brought the court case "told The Nation that he was not opposed to the name-change as such, but that 'it is the manner in which it was done that is of concern.'" We can agree to disagree about this, but I do insist that the situation is completely different than that of Myanmar/Burma, and what's done in that article doesn't translate very well here. --IamNotU (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not insisting that a certain formulation must be used, but I do want to suggest that there's not a consensus against using "formerly Swaziland" in general, if my input is considered. Having said that, I still definitely feel that the lead paragraph should indicate somehow that there has been a recent name change, as this is a basic and very significant fact. From the way it reads currently, one could easily get the impression that it has been "Eswatini" for a very long time, and that for some unspecified and unimportant reason it has an alternate "nickname". Maybe in five or ten years it will be less relevant, but it's likely that a significant number of people coming to the article will be very interested in this information, and surprised if they don't find it until several pages down at the end of the History section. I think this is an actual problem, not just me making things complicated, so I'll continue to suggest ways that this could be indicated. For example, the Chennai article uses "also known by its former name Madras". That doesn't imply that "Madras" is no longer used as an alternate or common name - it is, and several citations are given.
 * I understand that your position is that there is a "naming dispute", and it's true that we strongly disagree with each other about that. The name change was immediately accepted without controversy by all other countries and international bodies. Nobody is arguing with you that "Swaziland" is not still commonly used, that is a straw man you can drop. What I don't see is widespread evidence that anyone is disputing or refusing to use the new official name, particularly since it's the name that people have been using in siSwati all along. Even the laywer who brought the court case "told The Nation that he was not opposed to the name-change as such, but that 'it is the manner in which it was done that is of concern.'" We can agree to disagree about this, but I do insist that the situation is completely different than that of Myanmar/Burma, and what's done in that article doesn't translate very well here. --IamNotU (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that your position is that there is a "naming dispute", and it's true that we strongly disagree with each other about that. The name change was immediately accepted without controversy by all other countries and international bodies. Nobody is arguing with you that "Swaziland" is not still commonly used, that is a straw man you can drop. What I don't see is widespread evidence that anyone is disputing or refusing to use the new official name, particularly since it's the name that people have been using in siSwati all along. Even the laywer who brought the court case "told The Nation that he was not opposed to the name-change as such, but that 'it is the manner in which it was done that is of concern.'" We can agree to disagree about this, but I do insist that the situation is completely different than that of Myanmar/Burma, and what's done in that article doesn't translate very well here. --IamNotU (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with taking the qualified term; "formerly Swaziland" directly from the RS's is that they do not have the same strict rules that Wikipedia has between distinguishing WP:COMMONNAMES from WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Thus many of them will incorrectly state "formerly Swaziland" actually meaning "formerly Kingdom of Swaziland", as only the latter statement is actually correct. It is a subtle difference, but it matters here on English Wikipedia, but not necessarily to the authors and editors of news reports. If we start accepting "formerly Swaziland" across the whole face of English Wikipedia, when "Swaziland" is clearly an MOS:ALTNAME at the very least, and possibly still the more prevalent common name at the best (depending on your opinion), we will clearly be flying in the face of WP:COMMONNAME, which has become the undisputed foundation on how to name things in Wikipedia. This is not to mention the very POV-ey aspect to all this, which will result in EN.Wikipedia taking a side in the naming dispute (which I think has become more and more obvious to actually exist), by insinuating that the use of "Swaziland" is simply that of a "former" name. Your suggestion of the use of "formerly Swaziland" (which you have repeatedly stated is your preferred qualified term, despite clear objections from others) will not stand the test of time, as it will be struck down in articles when they are reviewed against the guidelines and will lead to needless additional conflict over the name. You have suggested that many RS's use both "Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)", and "Eswatini (Swaziland)" so I cannot see your reasoning to prefer the former over the latter, when "Eswatini (Swaziland)" is clearly a more WP:NPOV. It is true, the article's lead implies that it has been named "Eswatini" in English for a long time, but that is only because of the edit that was performed with a direct replacement of "Swaziland" by "Eswatini" without any sentences being added later in the lead saying that the term "Eswatini" has only been in existence in English since 2018. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "Nobody is arguing with you that "Swaziland" is not still commonly used" if you read back in previous discussions over this matter you will see that yes! Yes, this was exactly the argument made against my perspective. If the majority of people accepted that Swaziland is still commonly used then this article would still be titled "Swaziland" and this discussion we are having now would not be occurring. Now I accept that this was the majority decision, but I disagree with it. All I have tried to do in the discussions we have had since then are to attempt to adapt this decision into the Swaziland articles with as minimal disruption and as little confusion to the end reader as possible. You also state that the Myanmar/Burma situation doesn't correlate to this situation very well. But I see no problem with utilizing Names of Myanmar as a base to write an article about the clearly complex naming provisions that are current. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , at this point I am quite fed up with you putting words in my mouth: ""formerly Swaziland" (which you have repeatedly stated is your preferred qualified term" - in fact I have repeatedly stated that I don't have a preferred term, and reapeatedly asked you to kindly stop saying that I do. I am trying to solve some real problems through open discussion. The fact is that the opening paragraph of this article needs to convey the information that, simply put, the country's name was recently changed from Swaziland to Eswatini. This is a very important and relevant fact, and one of the most likely reasons that Wikipedia users would be searching for this article. You and others have reverted multiple attempts by several editors to convey this information. Convoluted interpretations about what constitutes an "official"/"common"/"alt" name are not an excuse. B.t.w., the U.S. Board on Geographic Names gives both "Kingdom of Eswatini" and "Eswatini" as approved official names, and both "Kingdom of Swaziland" and "Swaziland" are listed as "variants". There is nothing in the WP:*NAME articles that contradicts this, nor leads to the conclusion that "formerly Kingdom of Swaziland" is correct, while "formerly Swaziland" is incorrect. In any case, I'm asking you to cooperate in moving forward to solve this problem, as I feel the repeated rejection of all attempts to give information in the lead about the name change is detrimental to the article. --IamNotU (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , at this point I am quite fed up with you putting words in my mouth: ""formerly Swaziland" (which you have repeatedly stated is your preferred qualified term" - in fact I have repeatedly stated that I don't have a preferred term, and reapeatedly asked you to kindly stop saying that I do. I am trying to solve some real problems through open discussion. The fact is that the opening paragraph of this article needs to convey the information that, simply put, the country's name was recently changed from Swaziland to Eswatini. This is a very important and relevant fact, and one of the most likely reasons that Wikipedia users would be searching for this article. You and others have reverted multiple attempts by several editors to convey this information. Convoluted interpretations about what constitutes an "official"/"common"/"alt" name are not an excuse. B.t.w., the U.S. Board on Geographic Names gives both "Kingdom of Eswatini" and "Eswatini" as approved official names, and both "Kingdom of Swaziland" and "Swaziland" are listed as "variants". There is nothing in the WP:*NAME articles that contradicts this, nor leads to the conclusion that "formerly Kingdom of Swaziland" is correct, while "formerly Swaziland" is incorrect. In any case, I'm asking you to cooperate in moving forward to solve this problem, as I feel the repeated rejection of all attempts to give information in the lead about the name change is detrimental to the article. --IamNotU (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't blame me for the actions of others. I happen to agree with you that the 'official' change (Kingdom of Eswatini) should be clarified within the lead, just perhaps not in the first paragraph. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You reverted me with an argument that I think doesn't completely make sense, and I was frustrated with that. But at least it makes more sense than "unnecessary detail" and "nope, not needed"! So, thanks for trying to help add the obviously-needed info to the lead section, I do appreciate it. I also do understand to some extent why you want to use "also known as" instead of "formerly known as", and I agree that it's still commonly used. But that shouldn't prevent us from explaining the reason it's "also known as", which is that it was "formerly officially named" that (I still maintain that the short name is just as official as the full name per the constitution and international recognition; I don't accept that "Swaziland" was an "unofficial name"). In any case, I'm sure we could figure out a way to write it so that both basic points come across - that it was formerly (officially) called Swaziland, and it is still now commonly known as Swaziland. However, others have made it clear that they will revert any attempt to include the former point in the lead, unfortunately, which I just can't comprehend. To me it's a glaring omission under the circumstances, but I don't think I have the energy to keep banging my head against a brick wall, so I think I will just give up and drop it, for now... --IamNotU (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You reverted me with an argument that I think doesn't completely make sense, and I was frustrated with that. But at least it makes more sense than "unnecessary detail" and "nope, not needed"! So, thanks for trying to help add the obviously-needed info to the lead section, I do appreciate it. I also do understand to some extent why you want to use "also known as" instead of "formerly known as", and I agree that it's still commonly used. But that shouldn't prevent us from explaining the reason it's "also known as", which is that it was "formerly officially named" that (I still maintain that the short name is just as official as the full name per the constitution and international recognition; I don't accept that "Swaziland" was an "unofficial name"). In any case, I'm sure we could figure out a way to write it so that both basic points come across - that it was formerly (officially) called Swaziland, and it is still now commonly known as Swaziland. However, others have made it clear that they will revert any attempt to include the former point in the lead, unfortunately, which I just can't comprehend. To me it's a glaring omission under the circumstances, but I don't think I have the energy to keep banging my head against a brick wall, so I think I will just give up and drop it, for now... --IamNotU (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering that the name Swaziland has almost completely dropped from both official and public mention... wouldn't it be about time that it is changed to "formerly swaziland" ? Adam270391 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

premature renaming
Hello I believe at pages such as Talk:Kiev/naming they talk about the standards of commoname.

How is Eswatini/eSwatini meating the commoname? I brought this topic up at Kiev Naming, and they agree there that the naming to Eswatini from Swaziland was premature. 38.111.120.74 (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The "agreement" mentioned at that page appears to be as a result of comparing popular Google search terms. But that is not how page names are chosen. WP:COMMONNAME tells us to look at what is commonly used in English reliable sources. In particular, for the case of Eswatini, as a nation for which English is an official language, one should examine sources in the country concerned, per WP:TIES. If you read the lengthy move requests above, you'll see evidence that English sources have indeed switched to using predominantly Eswatini rather than Swaziland, in a way they simply have not for Kiev vs Kyiv. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, those are fair points. I just wonder how many people know that Swaziland is Eswatini/eSwatini? many maps I have and that my sighted girlfriend has from the past few years lists Swaziland not Eswatini or eSwatini. I've also seen newspaper articles listing Swaziland.

But your explanation is good, thank you so much.

38.111.120.74 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So to sum up what you are saying, it is similar to the case of Mumbay or Kolkata? Just wondered because the Kiev case does stand out a bit when compared to this one and the Mumbay and Kolkata examples. but I do understand that India and Eswatini are English speaking nations.

38.111.120.74 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, India is a country where English is an official language. And furthermore, almost no sources continue to use "Bombay" or "Calcutta" these days, whereas a majority do still use "Kiev". We reflect what the sources say, not listing them all and deciding which ones match and which ones don't. On your other point, people searching for Swaziland still end up at the right article, because there's a redirect and the other name is mentioned in the opening sentence. The same for Kyiv. Finally, please stop calling people "racists" and "naive Americans". If you make any more personal attacks of that nature you will be blocked. Regards &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Is Eswatini really a diarchy?
I was looking at a copy of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act (2005) (PDF will download on clicking), which I believe is the current constitution, and the term 'head of state' is used only in reference to the King of Swaziland and not the Queen Mother.

Chapter II, 4 (1): 'Without prejudice to the provisions of section 228, King and iNgwenyama of Swaziland is an hereditary Head of State...'

Chapter VI, 64 (1): 'The executive authority of Swaziland vests in the King as Head of State and shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.'

Chapter VI, 64 (4): 'The King in his capacity as Head of State has authority...'

Chapter IX (Traditional Institutions) appears to suggest that there is a distinction between the King in his capacity of head of state and the King in his capacity of iNgwenyama, or traditional monarch, which is also indicated in the quote from Chapter II above.

At no point is the The Ndlovukazi (another problem: the spelling used in the constitution but not on this page) described as a head of state. She has certain constitutional roles but head or co-head of state is not apparently one of them.

The problem I have is that this and several other Wikipedia articles seem to suggest that Eswatini has two heads of state. Rather, the constitution suggests that it has ONE head of state but two traditional monarchs (one of whom is NOT head of state). Unless I am mistaken (which is possible) it seems that Wikipedia is confusing the constitutional head of state with the ritual/traditional monarchy. It's a subtle distinction but I am concerned that we are disseminating false information. Worse yet, the current sources cited next to the claims that Eswatini has two heads of state do not back up the claim! For example, one of the sources cited which is the official government website of Eswatini instead states: 'Swaziland is a Monarchy whose current Head of State is His Majesty King Mswati III.'

I think we should discuss this, reach a consensus, and if necessary change the various articles accordingly. Francoisdjvr (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As nobody has responded I have gone ahead and removed the claim that Eswatini is a diarchy. Keep in mind that the claim was NOT backed up by the cited sources, so if anybody wants to restore the references to a diarchy please add sources that actually back that claim as well. Francoisdjvr (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Alternative pronunciation?
Seeing as to how an alternative capitalization is "eSwatini," could the country not also be pronounced ? jack chango  talk  16:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SO 3166 Information incomplete
In the infobox there is also a line about the ISO 3166 code. But there you can only see the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (SZ). What is missing is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code (SWZ) and the ISO 3166-1 numeric code (748). I wanted to add this but in the source code of the infobox the entry for the ISO 3166 code is unfortunately not to be found. Does anyone have an idea?--Bestoernesto (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrative divisions
The graphic alongside numbers the four divisions, which are: 1 Hhohho; 2 Lubombo; 3 Manzini; 4 Shiselwini. However, the table puts them in the order 1, 3, 4, 2. It would make sense to order them as in the graphic, and to identify each division with its number; thus

Area
The infobox gives the total area as 17,364 sq. km … but the total of the areas of the administrative districts is 18,374 sq. km: the infobox has shrunk Eswatini by 1,010 sq. km - i.e. by 5.5%! Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked the CIA Factbook, the Commonwealth, the BBC, and Encylopaedia Brittanica and found they all gave the same figure 17,364. The UN gives 17,363, the Government of Eswatini website gives 17,360, and the World Bank gives 17,300. Most Wikis in other languages that I checked (French, Dutch, German, Swati) use either 17,363 or 17,364. Clearly the mistake in the size of the administrative divisions. I have changed the numbers on the main page (since there was no citation anyway) to match the numbers on the articles on the divisions of Eswatini. I am not filled with confidence in the sources cited in the various articles, but the numbers at least do roughly add up. If anybody does find a good source, please feel free to add it to the main page. Francoisdjvr (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Change type of government
It's not a "Unitary parliamentary absolute monarchy", rather it's a "Unitary absolute monarchy under Semi-constitutional monarchy". I cannot edit it, please edit it on my behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.181.246 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Source? ---Taltos :) (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Princess Sikhanyiso Dlamini of Eswatini.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 24, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-11-24. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

"still commonly known in English as Swaziland"
This line is in the introduction, but if this was true, wouldn't the article name be "Swaziland" as per WP:COMMONNAME? Does the line need to be rewritten? --Spekkios (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Might as well call it Swaziland, in English. The real name of a big European country is Italia, but English speakers call it Italy.

Some research needed as to how far ranging the change is. Did the decree say that the new name is preferred in all languages? In any case, the new name means ‘land of the Swazis’, so if there are politics around this, they should be discussed in the article. 24.4.136.172 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is just poorly phrased. I don't see it as necessarily meaning that Swaziland is the most commonly used term, just that it is not a rare usage. However, I'm not sure what the actual pattern of usage is, so I can't say for certain that it is not. --Khajidha (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed "commonly" to "often" to avoid implying that we're referring to common usage. Kahastok talk 10:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Name
Do I remember correctly that the "new" name has the same meaning as the former English one, i e "Land of the Swazi"?--Oudeís talk 05:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Central Bank of Eswatini.jpg

Proper Capitalisation of Name (eSwatini)
If I am not mistaken, Swaziland changed its name to "eSwatini", not "Eswatini"... Should Wikipedia not respect the proper capitalisation of the name? NipponGinko (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Ample past discussions have addressed this issue, see above. JJLiu112 (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Technical reasons 51.37.98.236 (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The page can't have a lower case letter at the start, for technical reasons, but that has nothing to do with the article's title. When the country was renamed, the English name was declared to be eSwatini, starting with a lower case e (In Swazi, the name is weSwatini). Wikipedia should have properly respected the name's casing at that time, and nobody should argue that Wikipedia's tech flaws prevent it or any other nonsense like that. I don't know if it did. At some later point, the country was renamed again and it's English name is now Eswatini. You can see this on all of the country's official websites, for example. Wikipedia should properly respect that casing as well, and nobody should argue that the fact that it was once called eSwatini should prevent the current and proper name from being used now. '[Rest of original comment moved down to new section.]'' RoyLeban (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)