Talk:Gqeberha

Comments

the List of cities in South Africa and the Eastern Cape Province article suggest that PE is now known known as "Nelson Mandela Metropole". Really? Since when? If anybody can expand on this issue, it would be nice. Nyh 13:23, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

PE along with the surrounding towns of Despatch and Uitenhage form the Metropole, which is an administrative area, but the towns retain their own names. In effect it means that the area is governed by one authority, not that the towns have merged. Grunners

The administrative entity is officially the "Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality" and comprises the previous City of Port Elizabeth and the towns of Uitenhage and Despatch (plus some smaller settlements that were previously administered by a Regional Services Council) - and which still retain their geographic names. Elio1 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela Metro

There is a wiki page for the metro which should be referred to in this page in connection with government, Im going to copy the info from the Grahamstown article and make the neccessary changes. What is concerning me though is that the democraphics section here is based on Census SA's info that relates to the metro, for now Im going to leave the information here but it should go accross to the metro article with this article sticking really to the City.

Disambiguation

This page needs to be disambiguated from the Port Elizabeth in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Elizabeth,_Saint_Vincent_and_the_Grenadines). 194.129.50.189

I've created a disambig page, leaving the redirect from Port Elizabeth to Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape. Crazyscot 16:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Defence against possible copyright violation

Some of the original content of this page appears at first glance to be a copyright violation, lifted from http://www.nelsonmandelabay.com/port_elizabeth.asp . However, on closer examination, that page in fact appears to have been lifted from Wikipedia. As evidence of this, consider the beginning of its second paragraph: "The Donkin Reserve Port Elizabeth": this could only happen if that page had been naively copied and pasted from the Wikipedia article without copy-editing. Crazyscot 13:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of requesting a move to Port Elizabeth which is currently a redirect to here as per WP:COMMON.Crispness (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Apparently this article was originally at Port Elizabeth until June 2005 when an anonymous user did a cut-and-paste move to newly created Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape for unknown reason. There's no reason not to put it back. Station1 (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - no reason given for the move, and no alternative Port Elizabeth article to justify adding "Eastern Cape" to this one. Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Definitely. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

'also' known as Nelson Mandela Bay'????

The city has never/is known as Nelson M'ela Bay??? This is the name of the municipality. One doesn't say: Baltimore, also known as Maryland is a city... - Can someone please change the beggining??--Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SAFRICA assessment

Notwithstanding the assessments made by the other projects that this falls under, I'm giving this a C. Needs references for a few unsourced statments before I give it a B. Ron2K (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Urban decay

It says that the urban decay of central PE was due to the moving of the University and building of motorsways? To me this sounds like bull as the real reason. Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the moving of the university, but I understand that the building of the elevated M4 freeway did have quite a big effect in cutting off the city from its harbour, similarly to what the Foreshore Freeway did in Cape Town. I don't know if I would call that "urban decay", though. And in fact the CBDs of all South African cities experienced decay in the 80s and 90s - see Johannesburg, for example - so I don't know if it would be fair to attribute it to those PE-specific factors. Anyway, that whole section is unreferenced. - htonl (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup

2010 FIFA World Cup [quote The Port Elizabeth harbour, waterfront and city centre are in the process of being upgraded before the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and are expected to rival the popular Cape Town waterfront. The city is one of the venues for World Cup games, and many more visitors are expected. To this end, there are calls for Port Elizabeth Airport to be upgraded, to ease the journey time and effort both for World Cup teams and spectators, and also more generally for tourists.[citation needed] unquote]

The 2010 FIF world cup has come and gone. The Port Elizabeth harbour, waterfront and city centre were NOT upgraded before the 2010 FIFA world cup and certainly do NOT rival the Cape Town waterfront to the slightest degree. (There is NO tourist infrastructure in the harbour). In fact, members of the public are prohibited from entering the harbour. The airport itself was NOT upgraded but a few roads around the airport and in a few other areas were upgraded and completed prior to the start of the SWC in June 21010. A new bus service was started just before the Beginning of the competition. Members of the public who wished to attend any match at the stadium were required to park their cars at various venues and bus to the stadium. After the matches there was chaos as thousands of spectators tried to return to the car parks on the limited services provided. July 19th, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.244.185 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Entering the harbour is not completely prohibited. The public can visit the resturant (Oyster Catcher?), Yacht Club and a few other spots. Security checkpoint on entering and leaving the harbour is an absolute pain. -- Firefishy (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Municipal Manager

The entry for "Municipal Manager" is out of date (as at February 2012). There is currently an Acting Municipal Manager (Mr. Themba Hani) until such time as a permanent appointment is made.

Elio1 (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Since PE is not a minucipality it is rather unlikely that it will have a Municipal Manager. I have removed the municipal information from the infobox. --NJR_ZA (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's better - the "Municipal Manager" is at the head of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality, which administers the metropolitan area of which Port Elizabeth forms a geographical part; the former Port Elizabeth Municipality was disestablished when the NMBMM was established. Elio1 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

in terms of sports in Port Elizabeth. The IRON MAN SA event is held their every year.

Missing Notable Person

Ashton Nyte was noted years prior as being a notable person from PE. Why has this been removed even though on his wikipedia entry it clearly states he was born here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.227.91.224 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RJ Thomas 15:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC) I added Ashton Nyte back because he is clearly a notable person. (talk)

Another name change?

The official municipal website now refers to "Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality", i.e. the "Metropolitan" appears to have been discarded from the name. I don't know if the legal name has also been changed. Also, it appears the municipality has changed the title of its top official from "Municipal Manager" to "City Manager". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elio1 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Port Elizabeth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070114052056/http://www.africaalmanac.com/top20highschools.html to http://www.africaalmanac.com/top20highschools.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links removed by LibStar (talk)

Wiki policy on external links states quite clearly

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See § Official links.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

See particularly #3. Removing all external links but one is bordering on vandalism, and misquoting a Wiki guideline is not sound editing. Please discuss the matter on this page before reverting again. Paul venter (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

References

not vandalism that is ridiculous. LibStar (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@LibStar and Paul venter: The links removed by LibStar, and now by me, are not about the subject of the page directly, and hence do not belong. For more information about why they do not belong, read WP:ELNO, specifically #13, and the rest of the guideline. WP:ELYES is not a standalone piece of text.

Secondly, removal of external links is not vandalism. However, per WP:ELBURDEN, the undiscussed reinsertion of links is not the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks Beetstra. LibStar (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmm....LibStar did far more than remove the link I added - he removed all the links but one repeatedly (a clear case of edit-warring) and the undiscussed removal of links is not the way forward either - some evenhanded criticism might give the appearance of objectivity. I have neither the will nor the energy to engage in a futile exchange, but a third (unbiased) opinion might be a good idea.....Paul venter (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

you need to accept you lost the discussion here and WP:LETGO. it wasn't edit warring so stop clutching on straws. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@LibStar: now, this is not a battleground either, so that is unnecessary language not aimed at improving the article.

@Paul venter: that also did not get to the level of edit warring, and if it was, it takes at least two to edit war. Also not aimed at improving the article. And if you are not willing to defend these links, they are certainly failing our inclusion standards - they are just not being worth including. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC) (fix ping Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC))

Renaming too soon

WP:COMMONNAME WP:OFFICIAL WP:NAMECHANGES would indicate that the name would remain Port Elizabeth until the established usage in English changes, at this point, it's too early to tell (WP:CRYSTAL). There are numerous cases of SA towns and cities having their old names as common names, because the new names haven't been accepted by the population, and are widely disregarded in WP:RS, are hard to pronounce in English, or take years to become common for other reasons. Renamings have also been withdrawn in the Government Gazette shortly after being promulgated, or successfully challenged for procedural reasons in court before the usage becomes common. I would recommend moving the page only after it becomes clear that Gqeberha is the common usage, and given the size of this city, this could take months or years, and certainly won't happen overnight. Park3r (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Although I am not a regular contributor to this article, I 100% agree with this assessment. This is just not how things are done on EN.Wikipedia. The name change must only be reflected in the article's title once the reliable sources clearly reflect the new term as being accepted, and the sources commonly refer to it as such. Remember wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, we need not react immediately once an official legal position has been announced. We must follow the sources, to do otherwise would be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It should also be noted that news sources have changed their usages back-and-forth over a period of years in other cases, and this needs to be considered when deciding on whether a name change has really "taken" or not. Consideration should be given to other sources, apart from SA news websites (some of which may be politically linked), including international sources (since this is an internationally known city) and to making sure that sustained consensus is achieved over a large number of news sources. The risk of WP:CIRCULAR needs to be borne in mind. Park3r (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the title should now be changed. It is easy to add a redirect using the old name, and international news sources have recognized the change. See South Africans get their tongues round Gqeberha, the new name for Port Elizabeth, CNN, 25 Feb 2021, [South African city of Port Elizabeth becomes Gqeberha, BBC News, 24 Feb 2021, and The Telegraph.Calmecac5 (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. The risk with renaming based on contemporary news reports is that it presents a risk of WP:CIRCULAR references where the “endorsement” of Wikipedia becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. We should follow the policies listed above. Park3r (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be moved now. The renaming of Barrow, Alaska to Utqiagvik took about a year, while Bangalore hasn't moved to Bengaluru in over a decade. We can better assess in 6 months if the common name has changed as a result of this government declaration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation of Gqeberha

The English IPA Pronunciation of Gqeberha should be added to the article. See Help:IPA/English for a guide. Park3r (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on videos like this and this, the pronunciation in Xhosa seems to be [ᶢǃʱɛ̀béːxà] (the tones and vowels may be off but they clearly have a high pitch in, and lengthen, the second syllable). I assume English speakers not familiar with click languages will pronounce it /ɡəˈbeɪhə/ or /ɡəˈbɛərhə/, but we shall see. Nardog (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The b should be implosive according to both that audio and standard treatments of Xhosa orthography. Otherwise it would be Gqebherha. Changing this but leaving it open to discussion.

Note that the second video doesn’t seem to feature any native speaker: one is Anglophone, the speaker for the bulk of the video is Venda. Harsimaja (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, good catch about the implosive. Nardog (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Delagoa

Reference [29] of this article is incorrect. Delagoa does not mean "from Goa". Delagoa originates from Baía de Lagoa in Portuguese. Lagoon Bay in English.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

Reference [29] Delagoa does not mean "from Goa". Delagoa originates from Baía de Lagoa in Portuguese. Lagoon Bay in English. 102.182.13.62 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've removed the reference because direct Google Translate link is an exceptionally poor reference. But since you've not provided a reference yourself, I did not add your claim. Melmann 19:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

The Walmer Township is also known as Gqeberha. https://iaps.architexturez.net/doc/oai-iaps-id-0103bm042#:~:text=Gqebera%2C%20also%20known%20as%20Walmer,of%20the%20white%20local%20council. PDKM (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nardog (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2021

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: Not moved. There is no consensus that the new name is the WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Port Elizabeth → Gqeberha – New official city name. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: Do you have examples of the press using the new name? If you can give two South African sources and two non-South African sources using the name that aren't about the name change, I may support this. Per my comments above, it normally takes a minimum of 3-6 months of usage of a new official name to support changing an article title here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/gang-related-shooting-teen-girl-grassy-park/amp/ https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/gqeberha-mother-and-daughter-jailed-for-murder-of-family-electrician-20210311 https://allafrica.com/stories/202102240610.html https://www.sify.com/sports/eastern-province-name-15-member-team-for-provincial-cricket-news-cricket-vdlslfgdcbiai.html 2 south african, 2 non south african (AllAfrica isn't only South African) 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll !vote later today. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Per WP:NAMECHANGES, the decision to rename the article should be based on whether reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name. Taking a cursory look at Google News results over the past month:
  • Google News results over the past month for "Gqeberha"
  • Google News results over the past month for "Port Elizabeth"
  This is a bit of a crude measure, since not all of the listed results are reliable sources and not all of them use "Gqeberha" or "Port Elizabeth" in their own voice (e.g. appearances in quotes). A closer look is necessary to determine which is used more frequently, but it at least appears that there are reliable sources news outlets that use "Gqeberha" including (all from South Africa unless noted):
  • News24
  • The Herald
  • Eyewitness News
  • Daily Dispatch
  • SABC News
  • Daily Maverick
  • Independent Online
  • GroundUp
  • The South African
  • The Sowetan
  • Indo-Asian News Service (India)
  • Sierre Leone Times (Sierre Leone)
  — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC); expanded list 19:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC); wording modification — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Indo-Asian News Service may have a "fake news" problem, but I'm not worried about their cricket coverage. At a glance, South African sources are largely using Gqeberha, but foreign sources are often using both names; many foreign sources (such as the BBC) haven't referred to this place at all since the name change. I did find DA launches national petition to challenge Port Elizabeth name change which claims the name might be disputed for a month, not sure if that is true/relevant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, I didn't mean to claim that the list entirely consists of generally reliable sources. Indeed, it seems that there is little global coverage of the city in general so it is not easy to judge that aspect for now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:OFFICIAL WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COMMONNAME. A lot of article moves on South African topics have happened without taking these policies into account (see Grahamstown and Mbombela [Nelspruit] which may have been prematurely moved). In the past, I proposed some page moves like Bela Bela that I'm now unsure about. Given the dearth of online sources, changing the name on Wikipedia too soon would result in WP:CIRCULAR references, where Wikipedia's "endorsement", used in snippets by Apple and Google would create facts on the ground, or at least drive coverage using the new name (WP:SOAP). Also, South African news sources have tended to jump around during name changes (depending on the political inclinations of their editors). In the case of another proposed city renaming, the Sunday Times and SABC both switched for a few years before returning to the common usage. From an editorial standpoint, the text of these articles tends to get overwhelmed by name change controversies as the government and opposition groups slug it out in court, and this gets reflected in Wikipedia, which is another reason to adopt a wait-and-see approach, and to weight international sources more heavily. Park3r (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's too soon to judge if this name change will be picked up by reliable English-language sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral it's not the WP:COMMONNAME globally yet. However, this is an article about a South African topic and per WP:ENGVAR South African English is what matters most. That's less clear, but I still think it's a bit too soon for a move. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Will eventually support, ...but waiting for BBC to follow its own story. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-56182349 grateful to @LightningComplexFire: for having launched the RM. Not least because was hunting for WP:NAMECHANGES re some recent name reversal RMs to move some Azerbaijan towns back to Soviet Russian names. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/24/south-africas-port-elizabeth-changed-xhosa-click-language-name/ It seems unlikely that this name change will not catch on, so the only question really is move it now or wait 3 months. Support move, but would be inclined to wait. The consensus above looks to be heading that way, which is what we'd expect and probably what our readers expect too. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral - gut feeling is 'not yet' but I remember the same feeling (not necessarily WP related) when Bombay and Calcutta changed to Mumbai/Kolkata. Certainly in the ports arena, the national authority in SA is still referring to PE. Fob.schools (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Based on what MarkH wrote it seems to be the common or at least most used in South African English—blindlynx (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's been known as Port Elizabeth for most of its history. This does our users no favours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Port Elizabeth seems the most common name in use, despite the change by the national gov't. It is the established, longstanding name of the city for its entire existence and the future will determine whether Gqeberha gains support, or not. thorpewilliam (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Port Elizabeth has been used historically and internationally remains the de-facto name. The change appears controversial with a large portion of South Africans, particularly supporters of the Democratic Alliance. --Kirkworld (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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.

Audio recording of Gqeberha

We have the IPA pronunciation, but it would be great if we could add an audio recording as well, preferably voiced by a native Xhosa speaker.Park3r (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

And in English

In reply to the comment above asking for an audio recording .... I would like to see this, yes. Also I want to know, does this name have a different pronunciation for when it's used in English? For example, the Alaskan town name Utqiagvik has both a native pronunciation and an adapted English pronunciation. Likewise for many Spanish-origin placenames in the American Southwest, such as Las Vegas, Los Angeles, etc .... names we Americans might never think twice about. —Soap— 20:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like some Xhosa-speakers struggle with the pronunciation, or at least the spelling [1]. It's unlikely that an adapted standardised English pronunciation will emerge. South Africa is too riven by divisions (class, race, language, others) anyway, so at best you'd probably end up with two or three non-Xhosa pronunciations depending on the background of the speaker, and any of those would be used in English. (It is possible, if unlikely, that South African English speakers will be able to correctly handle the click sound the same way they can handle guttural sounds: I think I can approximate the sound in the NPR recording- despite only having a single click word: tsk in my vocabulary- possibly because of exposure to click sounds on TV when I was younger). This is why an audio recording would be really useful in the article. Park3r (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I am Xhosa. How can I contribute? How do I upload? 41.114.178.27 (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

How do I upload? 41.114.178.27 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Register an account and use commons:Special:UploadWizard. The format must be Ogg, FLAC, WAV, or MP3. Nardog (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed name change to Nelson Mandela City

Before any further article moves are considered, it should be noted that there have been 66000 objections (from people of different race groups) to the name Gqeberha (the origin of the name appears to be unknown, and the there appear to have been procedural issues, with only 393 people were consulted on the name out of a population of 1.4 million), that the municipality has lodged a formal objection, and that an alternative name proposed is Nelson Mandela City.[2][3] Park3r (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Gqeberha/Port Elizabeth

Now that the objections to the name change have been rejected by government, and, more importantly from Wikipedia's perspective, with South African media extensively using the new name these days, is it time to change the name of the article per WP:NAMECHANGES? Greenman (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s still probably too soon. Also due weight needs to be given to the (lack of) general credibility of the South African media, which has developed major issues with even simple fact checking and reporting[4][5] .Park3r (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Both of these links seem to be about reporting by one (1) outlet, the Pretoria News. Surely you're aware that a city generally has more than one newspaper, let alone an entire country. The New York Times running a bullshit article would not discredit New York City, and it certainly would not discredit all media in the United States! jp×g 03:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2021

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: Not considered - please re-request with an actual rationale, @Desertambition: (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Port Elizabeth → Gqeberha – Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically. Desertambition (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 20 September 2021

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: Closing early per WP:SNOW. Keeping this open for any longer will only make the move further away from happening. A new RM paying regard to policy, particularly WP:NAMECHANGES, would be welcome. Nardog (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Port Elizabeth → Gqeberha – This article should have been moved months ago. Proof has already been posted on this page. However, South African news sources are not accepted for being "unreliable". This is transparently an effort by white South Africans to prolong the name "Port Elizabeth" in place of "Gqeberha" against the wishes of most South Africans. This goes against the fundamental ideas of Wikipedia. Articles should not pander to a specific ethnic group but rather reflect the common name. Three points from "Reasons for moving a page" apply here:

1. The title does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, such as that it is not the common name of the subject or it is overprecise.

2. The subject of the article has changed its name and the new name has come into majority use.

3. The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate.

There are no more arguments to be made besides looking at the proof that has already been provided. It must also be noted that many non-white South Africans do not have internet access and are thus unlikely to appear on the wikipedia talk page in great numbers. The legacy of apartheid still looms over South Africa in many ways, this is one of them. Desertambition (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: You have made no effort to prove that Gqeberha is the common name. All you're doing is playing the race/apartheid card. O.N.R. ^(talk) 09:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose/Speedy close No substantive evidence provided. Park3r (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose/Speedy close "Port Elizabeth" is vastly more common than "Gqeberha" in searches,^{"Port Elizabeth","Gqeberha"} this shows that reasons (1) and (2) are not reasons for a move. Reason 3 is not applicable either, since the current article name is correctly spelled/capitalised/punctuated, etc.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose as other commenters have noted, the nominator has not even made a minimal effort to demonstrate what the common name is. No prejudice against this proposal if a rationale is given. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose; the nominator has failed to provide rational supporting the move (The official name, per WP:OFFICIALNAME, is a candidate for the articles title, but it is not automatically assumed to be the correct title - in relation to #2, this means that Gqeberha is a valid candidate, but you still need to demonstrate that it has come into common use. Further, I would ask the nominator to be mindful of WP:CIVIL; while I am ignorant of the broader discussions on this page and elsewhere, the insinuations you have made in this proposal about the motives of some editors is problematic at best. BilledMammal (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is still the clear WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reasons provided are insufficient. Fbergo (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 30 September 2021

Port Elizabeth → ? – Port Elizabeth was renamed to Gqberha. This is the name used by government services and local media.

https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/sport/soccer/2021-09-12-royal-am-finally-win-their-first-match-in-the-premiership-hand-chippa-maiden-defeat/

https://www.news24.com/wheels/motorsport/gtc-heads-to-gqberha-with-title-battles-wide-open-20210525

https://www.enca.com/news/gqeberha-fire-businesses-and-vehicles-gutted

https://www.dispatchlive.co.za/sport/2021-05-02-going-the-distance-sa-half-marathon-championship-in-gqeberha-reminds-us-of-former-glory-days/

https://mype.co.za/new/gqberha-in-the-news-22-may-2021/146973/2021/05/

African news articles were considered "unreliable" before. I think this is incorrect and these sources should be taken seriously. There is no reason African media would be inherently unreliable.

Apologies for misspelling Gqeberha, Xhosa is not my first language.

Desertambition (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, while I feel that this doesn't improve considerably on the second proposal, in particular in the area requested in closing (A new RM paying regard to policy, particularly WP:NAMECHANGES, would be welcome), as this is now the third proposal on this topic I believe we should settle the question, at least for the moment.

Second, I want to comment that I support the use of the sources provided by Desertambition; while WP:COMMONNAME does require independent, reliable English-language sources, I believe that when considering between two names without NPOV considerations even unreliable sources can give evidence that a term is in common use - though please note that I have not assessed any of these sources for reliability, and so am not making any claim in regards to their reliability or lack thereof.

Third, even considering those sources, I believe the WP:COMMONNAME continues to Port Elizabeth. Ngrams is not particularly useful here, as it currently goes up to 2019 and the name change discussion was started in 2019, so I will directly consider news sources. "Gqberha" gives 81 news results, while "Port Elizabeth" tells us "many" (so many that the number is inaccurate and shouldn't be directly considered) and while not all of these refer to the location, enough do that I believe "Port Elizabeth" continues to be the common name.

I could be wrong, and I would welcome evidence being provided in support of the name change, and I will also note that I believe the common name will eventually become "Gqberha", and at that point I will be only too happy to support the move. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It may be the third proposal, but both the others were flawed. The first provided no rationale, while the second does likewise, as well as derailing itself talking about ethnic groups. Since the name has changed officially, and usage is increasing (it's getting rare to even see "previously called Port Elizabeth" anymore), the name change is seemingly inevitable, and the proposal will probably keep being made until it goes through. Greenman (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Still the WP:COMMONNAME worldwide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support (pending the misspelling being corrected). I am favour of renaming Port Elizabeth to Gqeberha. Gqeberha is now the commonly used name, as indicated in the examples in the proposal. However, note the misspelling in the proposal. It's "Gqeberha", not "Gqberha". This could explain BilledMammal's search results. The sources provided in the proposal are good, see https://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/358453-here-are-south-africas-most-popular-news-websites.html It is not only local sites that have switched. News on the city is fairly uncommon internationally, but here is a recent example from the BBC. Greenman (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• That makes the case a little more opaque, but looking at the results generated, I continue to believe that Port Elizabeth continues to remain the most common term used internationally, particularly but not solely in sports-related news: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Some of the sources listed in the reply immediately above appear to lean towards Gqeberha. News24, which is South Africa's most widely read media source, has switched almost exclusively to Gqeberha. One of the two sources provided is sponsored content, and the other appears to be an anomaly. See [14] for the Port Elizabeth tag, which as far as I could see returns no articles with Port Elizabeth in the title, but numerous with Gqeberha. Timeslive appears to be inconsistent, but appears to lean towards Gqeberha. I can't link to the results directly, but from the main page, a search for Gqeberha returns results with the term in the headline/summary, while a search for Port Elizabeth only appears to return results with that name in the body. Capetownetc is not a particularly influential or widely read site. I can only find a single recent article in the Scottish Herald referring to either, and only two each from Ugandan Daily Monitor and Zambian football, so not enough to establish a usage there, while I would say the New York Times, Washington Post sources below do more to establish WP:COMMONNAME. Greenman (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support for Gqeberha - I see a lot of media using Gqeberha internationally now, especially in the last month, including AP ([15], [16]) and Reuters ([17], [18]). In the United States, it is now in use by The New York Times ([19], [20]), The Washington Post ([21]) and the Los Angeles Times ([22]). Although I don't know much about South African media, The Herald, which is apparently the oldest newspaper in the country, is also using it ([23], [24]; see also Google search results). The South African Broadcasting Corporation has also switched (compare Gqeberha to Port Elizabeth results), but as it is a public broadcaster it would of course make sense that it would switch before the rest of the media. In fact, even in the international media the "formerly Port Elizabeth" disclaimer is going away. MSG17 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  Some more: Mail & Guardian (Compare Gqeberha and Port Elizabeth tags) and TimesLIVE/Sunday Times (compare "gqeberha" and [25]; the PE results mostly go up to Feb 2021, with Gqeberha seeing usage after that date in articles not about the renaming) use Gqeberha. AFP seems to be a bit more split, using both names (see these two Radio France International stories: PE and Gqeberha). MSG17 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support move to Gqeberha per WP:NAMECHANGES.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support move to Gqeberha--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. After News24, which is South Africa's most widely read media site, IOL is no. 2/3 and also leans heavily towards Gqeberha. https://www.iol.co.za/search?q=Gqeberha returns 29 results since September while https://www.iol.co.za/search?q=Port+Elizabeth returns 12 since September, of which 4 are historical usage, 2 "formerly Port Elizabeth" after usage of Gqeberha, and 1 related to an unrelated entity based in the city that still uses the Port Elizabeth in its name. Greenman (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per COMMONNAME. Indeed, it is still clear that recent sources still call it Port Elizabeth, especially in Southern African neighbouring countries as well as worldwide. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Cherrypicking is not helpful in establishing COMMONNAME. You listed one source to base your claim of "worldwide" usage, and one to establish "Southern African" usage. But here's an article from the same source using Gqeberha (full quote for those not wanting to register is "The park in Gqeberha, 460 miles (740km) east of Cape Town". Here's an example from eSwatini. Here's a Zambian football example. Greenman (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. South African media has reliability issues in general, and are capricious when it comes to name changes, using one name for a while, then another, depending on the way the political winds are blowing. Wikipedia should not be used to establish facts on the ground, and changing the name too quickly here will result in WP:CIRCULAR references.Park3r (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME in Britain. Google News search results for Britain for the past year are: Port Elizabeth 218 results, Gqeberha 13 results (both searches exclude the other name). There is no point in Wikipedia using a name so unfamiliar to readers that even the proposer has difficulty spelling it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)