Talk:Cape Colony

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox update[edit]

This infobox should be replaced by {{Infobox Former Country}} Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 03:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Done. --Ctatkinson 12:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I think the information about the Colony's coat of arms would be more useful if included in this main article. Any comments? Madmedea 10:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons why there should be a separate article for the Coat of arms of Cape Colony. The Cape Colony is an article on a historical political entity comparable to a modern country that should have its own set of dependent but separate articles. Keeping the entry a separate separate also makes it easier to find with in the set of articles on heraldry. You may also have noticed that there is a sepatrate Flag of Cape Colony article, which is also proper.
Regarding structure however the parts about the Dutch colony should be split into a separate article, given its own infobox and have the links refering to the Dutch times redirected there. An appropriate name would be Dutch Cape Colony. -- Domino theory 22:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SouthAfrica state template[edit]

Hi folks. I've added this article to the SouthAfrica state template, and the template to the article. If I've committed a major faux pas in doing so, please accept my apologies. Tevildo (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God Save the Queen?[edit]

Since the British Empire was ruled by a King at the time, shouldn't the anthem read God Save the King? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Kastberg (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see people have done that on other pages, so I'm going to change it. — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 20:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yepp! Bingo. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves?[edit]

This article says that the dutch enslaved africans but in the "history of cape colony" article it does not mention this and actually says that they paid non-white workers for their work. I removed them reference to slavery.

Infobox does not match the article[edit]

I think this article should either split into Dutch Cape Colony and British Cape Colony, or the infobox has to be quite different. The article itself is now about both the Dutch and British period, but the infobox is only about the British period. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has a comment? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been WP:BOLD. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps "Transvaal" shoul be a guide. If you type those words in you get: 1) A short general definition"(Transvaal is a geographic term associated with land north of (i.e., beyond) the Vaal River in modern day South Africa. Many states and administrative divisions have carried the name Transvaal.) 2) Links to other articles.

So expand the lead in page to the two good articles we have on Dutch and British Cape Colony. But don't merge anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousemenace (talk • contribs) 21:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with "Cape Colony"[edit]

This stub should be merged into the dis-ambiguous class-c article and a redirect should be created. Technical 13 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Dutch Cape Colony, then? - htonl (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole idea of creating separate articles by sticking the words "British", "Dutch", &c., at the front is almost certainly an ungrammatical "fad" (fashion)—nay "meme"—started by Anglophile Hongkong Chinese and Japanophile Taiwanese Wikipedians for revisionist political reasons, with no other known major example—as far as I am aware of—in Wikipedia without. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 06 December 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. A history swap will be done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Cape Colony → Cape Colony – Now Cape Colony redirects here, I suggest the article is renamed. It was never known as British Cape Colony, but simply as Cape Colony. Although there was an earlier Dutch colony of the same name in Dutch (which I have linked by a hatnote at the top of this article), this is by far the most famous usage of Cape Colony, and the only one in English, and most historians (from English-speaking countries at least) who heard the name would be thinking of the entity described here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom Red Slash 00:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, I've never heard it called "British Cape Colony. Neljack (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cape of Good Hope[edit]

The title of this article (and that of several related ones) is wrong. The official name of the colony was never "Cape Colony", but "Cape of Good Hope". The names "Cape Colony" and "Kaapkolonie" were merely colloquial titles. For just a few examples of the official name, see:

Tossing a rock into the bush... -- André Kritzinger (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very misleading. At the moment the intro seems to say
The Cape of Good Hope was a British colony named after the Cape of Good Hope. The British colony was preceded by an earlier Dutch colony called the Cape of Good Hope.
If I knew a bit more about it I would edit this, but maybe someone else can. A good start would be clarifying in the intro whether the Cape of Good Hope is a geographical feature, or a political entity? Afterbrunel (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 June 2015[edit]

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: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Cape Colony → Cape of Good Hope – The official name of the territory, Kaap de Goede Hoop in the Dutch colonial era, Cape of Good Hope in the British colonial era and finally Cape of Good Hope Province of the Union of South Africa, as reflected in official documentation of the territory as well as on its postage stamps and medals. André Kritzinger (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for two reasons. First, the primary meaning of "Cape of Good Hope" is the cape itself which was the article of that title until an undiscussed move by the nominator yesterday. Second, this Cape Colony article only covers the period from 1795 to 1910. There are two others at Dutch Cape Colony (1652–1795) and Cape Province (officially the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, 1910–1994) which were also Capes of Good Hope. —  AjaxSmack  02:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose this is clearly NOT the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term. Further, the nominator displaced the existing topic at the target location, so this is in effect a multimove request. We do not use WP:OFFICIALNAMEs to name articles, we use WP:COMMONNAMEs to name them, and this article is currently residing at the common name of the topic. The requested name is not the common name of this topic, nor the primary topic of the name requested. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE see related conflicting move request at Talk:Cape of Good Hope (landmark) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. No argument much less evidence that this is the primary topic use of this name. Please contact me in the unlikely event such an argument surfaces. --В²C ☎ 23:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 29 December 2020[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, majority of editors see it as the primary topic (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Cape Colony → British Cape Colony – The Cape Colony was not only ruled by the British. The Dutch have also ruled it before and it has a page called Dutch Cape Colony so therefore the page of Cape Colony which is ruled by the British should have its name moved to British Cape Colony. D4rkeRR9 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. By far the commonest meaning of Cape Colony and what most people are referring to when they talk of Cape Colony (and thus clear primary topic) and the only one in English (since the Dutch actually called it Kaapkolonie). Also, it was never known as "British Cape Colony", but only as "Cape Colony". -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was initially leaning oppose since "Cape Colony" is an official name. On the other hand, I could not really come up with non-Anglocentric reasons to give British colonial names priority over translations of Dutch ones. My mind was made up when I saw the Gold Coast examples, with every country having a pretty straightforward name yet the British Gold Coast being awkwardly renamed "Gold Coast (British colony)". Since I'd rather avoid "Cape Colony (British colony)", I'd prefer "British Cape Colony" as a natural disambiguator. Walrasiad (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hello Necrothesp, It is the same scenario for the Dutch Colony, it wasn't called Dutch Cape Colony either but it was called "Kaapkolonie" which translates to Cape Colony in the Dutch Language. The Cape Colonies should have context to state who their coloniser is because the Cape was historically a Colony of two empires and both of them called it "Cape Colony". D4rkeRR9 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the proposer, you obviously support the proposal. Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The British Cape Colony is clearly primary. I agree that the Dutch colony should probably be renamed. We use the name by which an entity was known, not a made-up title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just call it "British Cape Colony"? Walrasiad (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were disambiguating in context. The article has a hatnote for the same purpose. CMD (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the current article is the primary topic for the article title. CMD (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Necrothesp. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cape_Colony&oldid=1215151324"