|WikiProject South Africa||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Former countries||(Rated Start-class)|
The focus of this page
I'm worried about the (lost) focus of this page, and in particular its first paragraph. Is this an article about the Transvaal "area" (whatever this means), the South African Republic, the Transvaal Colony, the Transvaal Province, or what?
Earlier in the life of this article, it was clear that this article was about the Transvaal Province, with this province's history (including the SAR) outlined in the "History". Seperate articles, like South African Republic and Gauteng were about the previous and later reorganizations of this area, but this article focused on one period (1910-1994). We have now lost this focus, and it is no longer clear what belongs in this article and what belongs in the other articles...
I suggest this article is properly rewritten to describe the Transvaal Province (1910-1994) with proper references to other articles about the Transvaal region both in terms of political entities and geographical area. Important is to make a lay-out of the different articles, their content and focus and the way in which they are linked. This can prevent further confusion as with the recent changes in the infobox. Michel Doortmont (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I came back to this article 4 years later, and it's unfortunately even more a mess then it was before :( The focus of this article is now claimed to be about the "Transvaal Colony", and there's a new and separate and much shorter article on "Transvaal Province". But this makes little sense to me: First of all, "Transvaal Province" deserves more attention than "Transvaal Colony", both because it existed for more years (84 years vs 8 years), and because it is the most recent entity called "Transvaal" so most people remember it. So this, better, article should be about the province, not the colony. Second, we need an article about the Transvaal history as a whole - the situation before the Boer trek, to the ZAR, the transvaal colony, province, and finally its split. This history belongs in "Transvaal Province" (for the colony, the last things are its future, not history ;-)). Nyh (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- To add insult to injury, much of the content currently in Transvaal Colony is NOT related to the colony. The geography section is about the province (and gives names relevant to that era), and so is the "popular culture" section. I'm being bold and copying these things to the province article, but I'm NOT cleaning up this article at the moment.
- Wait Troy, I'm confused... how is it independent and a province? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 11:31, 18 January 2003 (UTC)
- TODO: I want to add a paragraph about the pre-1850 history for the Transvaal. The old "Transvaal Province" included this paragraph which needs to be fact-checked:
"Originally, the Sotha and Venda peoples settled there in what is believed to be the eighth century. In the 1830s, Boers departed on the Great Trek to escape British rule in the Cape Colony and settled in the Transvaal area.".
Also perhaps link and talk about Voortrekkers and the Zulus which they fought (see Boer article). Nyh 07:48, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Why is this page unreachable directly? I can only get here via a redirect from Transvaal Province. Otherwise I get a blank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 5 February 2004 (UTC)
- this must have been some sort of transient problem, I can now get to "transvaal" with no problems.Nyh 13:45, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
On the settlers' ethnicity
Hi. A simple phrase like "Dutch settlers, known as Boers ..." was replaced by someone by an amazingly verbose, convolute and impossible to understand string of nationalities:
In the 1830s and the 1840s, descendents of Dutch settlers / French Huguenot refugees / German Prostestants / & smaller numbers of Belgians / Scandinavians / Scots / including an admixture of Indian, Khoi-Khoi & Malay, known as Boers (farmers) or Voortrekkers (pioneers), exited the British Cape Colony, in what was to be called the Great Trek.
I don't think that this can stay. How about saying "decscendents of Dutch and other settlers, known as Boers..."? This long detailed list should be listed in Boers, and whoever wants to see it can go there. Alternatively, you can write an entire paragraph about the ethnic composition of the Boers. But it simply cannot be one big slash-separated adjective - that looks horrible.
Nyh 14:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi Nyh, The links you restored are going to the wrong places. In the Geograpy heading it talks about the Transvaal province not republic or anything else.
Need more clarity in where links must go to. --Jcw69 09:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- But, according to what I understand, Orange Free State is also the name of the 1910-1994 province of South Africa. Free State Province is the name of the post-1994 province, and is irrelevant because Transvaal is a pre-1994 province. Or am I misunderstanding something (I have to admit I am not a south african, just a fan)?? Also, Natal has the beginning of a description of the 1910-1994 Natal province. True, the description is one paragraph, and it acts as a disambiguation page, but still it is the only page on Wikipedia which describes the correct entity, namely the 1910-1994 province of South Africa. KwaZulu-Natal is the wrong entity - it is a post-1994 province that never coexisted with Transvaal so a link to it doesn't belong in the Transvaal entry.
- But if I'm wrong, please help me understand why.
- Nyh 12:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- In many situations (such as cities with different names in Roman times), we redirect to from the ancient name to modern, so the city's history is a continuous narrative. This works because the location is the same, the population is continuous usually, etc. For states and provinces with fluctuating borders and definitions, it works better to have multiple articles, and for each article to describe relationships both to modern units and to contemporaneous ones - consider articles like Gaul and Lusitania for instance. Stan 13:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with both of you. Maybe we should have seperate pages. Eg Pre-Whites, Natal Colony, Natal and KwaZulu-Natal. But in which one do we place the early history before whites arrived in South Africa and named the provinces. As for Transvaal there is Pre-Whites, Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, Transvaal, (now divided up into smaller pieces).
- So which way to go? --Jcw69 10:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I still don't understand the question. Please read the current page (I wrote most of it), and there is no question on what it discusses: the Transvaal Province of South Africa, the one that existed in 1910-1994. Like any page about a country or province, it begins its history section by mentioning how the region become a province, but the first paragraph makes it clear the focus of the article is the province, and not the Boor state or anything that preceded it - or the current (post-1994) provinces. So, in the Geography section, we must mention entities that existed at the time. Some of them had their name changed in the middle (which is why I mentioned both), but some names are clearly anachronistic and shouldn't be used - "KwaZulu-Natal" is an entity that never existed together with the Transvaal province, so it should not be mentioned (except perhaps as some sort of clarification, perhaps something like "... Natal (today's KwaZulu-Natal)."). Similarly, as I understand (and I didn't hear that disputed).
Consider for example the article on the Maya civilization. It makes sense to mention they lived in areas which noadays are in Mexico. But it does not make sense to say something like "The Maya empire bordered on the United States on the north". Since the United States did not exist at the time, it's an anachronism and it doesn't make any sense. I claim that it's just as strange to say that Transvaal bordered on KwaZulu-Natal - these entities never co-existed.
Nyh 10:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Early history of an area usually starts from either general history of a country (History of South Africa) or continent (History of Africa). If there's a general principle, it's to use contemporary political and geographical divisions as starting points for history, with articles on historical divisions as specialized items restricting themselves to the period of their existence. It's not universally followed, but seems clear enough to use for decisionmaking about content. Stan 16:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transvaal (The Hague)
- This is interesting. I'm presuming that 'wijk' is the same as Afrikaans 'wyk' meaning something like 'district'. Booshank 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism or misguided additions - removed
Anonymous user 18.104.22.168 has changed the infobox beyond recognition and fiddled with dates etc. This is either vandalism or a completely misguided change. I undid the change. Michel Doortmont (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
colony vs. province
Some clarification/agreement is needed as to what this article is about. Someone has added 1994 as the disestablishment again (e.g. the dissolution of Transvaal Province); the result is that this article now states two years as disestablishment (see categories). That is at best confusing and at worst doesn't make sense. Either we need to clarify that this article is about both the Colony and the Province, or we need to spin out an article Transvaal (Province). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is (or should be) about both. The problem is that we have never said about the 1910-1994 province apart from "In 1910, the Boer republics joined with the Cape Colony to form the Union of South Africa. Half a century later, in 1961, the union ceased to be part of the Commonwealth of Nations and became the Republic of South Africa. The PWV (Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging) area in the Transvaal became South Africa's economic powerhouse, a position it still holds today." What is needed is something more about these 84 years. Only then is it worth discussing where such information should be put.--Rumping (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposal to split
In the hatnote this article is described as covering the 1902-1910 British Colony but most of the actual content of the article lies outside of that period. There is no other article covering the 1910 - 1994 province. If this article really should be restricted to the Colony only then its name should not be the single word "Transvaal", it should rather be "Transvaal Colony" or "Colony of Transvaal" (use the official form, whatever it was). The single word title would be understood by most readers who have any knowlege of the place (such as basically all South Africans older than 20) to refer to the 1910 - 1994 Province. It is simply "unbalanced" that the article about the least significant period (a mere 8 years) of the territory's entire history should appropriate the single word name "Transvaal" that in fact was the official name of the province. The pre-1902 Republic's name was "Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek" in Dutch or "South African Republic" in English. Not to be confused with the 1961 - present "Republic of South Africa". I feel very strongly that all four 1910 - 1994 provinces should each have a proper separate article without confusing the issue with other periods.
Therefor I Propose that this article be split into two separate articles: Transvaal Colony for the period 1902 - 1910 and Transvaal for the 1910 - 1994 province. Roger (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- There really is not enough for 1902-1910 or 1910-1994 to be worth splitting.--Rumping (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- If the split is done the individual articles could easily be expanded. There is a truly massive ammount of material avalailable on the Province but I for one am not willing to add it to this mess of an article as it is now precisely because its scope is poorly defined and confused. A further consideration is that there is no article about the province on en.WP at all while the other 3 1910-1994 provinces do have substantial articles. Roger (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly concur that there are several potential articles, a good structure may be a page for Colony of Transvaal; which would cover all three incarnations of pre-union British rule in separate sections. Then a Transvaal Province article which covers the 1910-1994 province, and a Transvaal article which covers the geographic region. Aricci526 17:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The links to other languages are almost all incorrect. They link to articles about the Transvaal in the generic territorial or provincial sense and not to pages specifically about the Colony. I don't know if there is a specific procedure for fixing this problem. Roger (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- this is often done when the precise article does not exist; people pick "the next best thing". If any of the other wikipedias has an article specifically about the British colony (I suspect there won't be too many, then just link to there. Meanwhile, I'll just remove them all; it's seems they all link back the generic one in most cases. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I have just (quite ruthlessly) stripped out content that was irrelevant to the period covered by this article. If it didn't happen or exist between the signing of the Treaty of Vereeniging on 31 May 1902 and the establishment of the Union of South Africa exactly eight years later on 31 May 1910, it does not belong here. Roger (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)