From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Life expectancy[edit]

There are currently two very different claims regarding life expectancy, both of which are cited to what I would generally consider reliable sources. In the lead life expectancy is put at 58. Farther down in the Health section it put at 50. The former is cited to The Economist. The latter is cited to the World Health Organization. My belief is that WHO is probably the better source but I would like input before making any changes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The one in health is from 2015, the lead is from this year. --Khajidha (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
That's an improvement bordering on the miraculous, if both sources were accurate. While I do not dismiss divine intervention in my personal beliefs, here we generally deal with more science based evidence and sources. I think it would be helpful if we knew where the Economist is getting their data. WHO is pretty close to the gold standard where these kinds of statistics are being cited. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
According to the CIA World Factbook [1] life expectancy in 2017 was 52.1, tying with Gabon for the 4th lowest globally. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is not as miraculous as you might think. Over the past 10-15 years the overall acceptance and reduction in the stigma of HIV/AIDS and antiretroviral medication has been improving steadily. As Swaziland (and the neighboring region of Southern Africa) were so severely hit by the AIDS epidemic the overall life expectancy was thus significantly depressed. Since antiretrovirals (ARVs) are so effective at re-establishing a more normal life expectancy for an HIV patient, things are now just returning to a more normal situation in the country. Thus, we get a big bump in the life expectancy in a very short period of time. I would agree that the WHO data would be the preferable option normally, due to the global reach of the institution, however, seeing as the Economist's data is just so much more recent, I would say that it will be the better option of the two in this case. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, upon reviewing the WHO source I can see that the wrong number was taken for the life expectancy value in the first place. The table in the source clearly says Swaziland has combined a life expectancy of "58.9" years from birth. There is a value just to the right of it under a heading that says "Healthy life expectancy at birth (years)" as the value that is reflected in the article, namely "50.9" years. I will make the correction for it now. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey of reliable sources[edit]

WP:NAMECHANGES states, "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." It's now been nearly six months since this country's name was changed, so here's a survey of what reliable sources now call it. I've avoided listing wire services more than once, but AP, Reuters and AFP stories are posted on hundreds of reliable news outlets' sites.

Local Media

Despite the newspaper still being called Times of Swaziland, I can't find a recent story in the paper that calls the country Swaziland.

Major Media in South Africa

This article is written in South African English and is about a country largely surrounded by South Africa. SA has three major newspaper publishing groups: Times Media Group, Media24, and INMSA.

  • AFP via The Times (Times Media Group): eSwatini[12]
  • News24 (Media24): eSwatini[13]
  • African News Agency (ANA) via IOL (INMSA): eSwatini[14]
  • SABC: eSwatini[15]
  • eNCA: eSwatini[16]

Major Media in Other English-speaking Countries

  • BBC News: eSwatini[17]
  • Reuters via The New York Times: eSwatini[18]
  • The Associated Press (AP) via The Washington Post: Eswatini[19]
  • CNN: Swaziland, eSwatini[20]
  • The Guardian: Eswatini[21]
  • The Telegraph: Eswatini[22]
  • The Sydney Morning Herald: eSwatini [23]
  • The Hindustan Times: eSwatini[24]

Other International Broadcasters (English)

  • Deutsche Welle: eSwatini[25]
  • Al Jazeera: eSwatini[26]
  • NHK: Eswatini[27]
  • TeleSUR: eSwatini[28]
  • RT: eSwatini[29]

International Governments (English)

  • United Nations: Eswatini[30]
  • Kingdom of Eswatini: Eswatini[31]
  • South Africa: Eswatini, eSwatini[32]
  • U.S. State Department: Eswatini[33]
  • UK Foreign Ministry: Eswatini[34]
  • Government of Canada: Eswatini[35]
  • Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Eswatini[36]
  • New Zealand Foreign Affairs & Trade: Eswatini[37]

More than twice as many of the above news outlets use eSwatini vs. Eswatini. Governmental bodies use Eswatini, but Wikipedia tends to use news media over official sources for determining a page name. Media in the country itself use Eswatini. Media in South Africa use eSwatini, and this article is written in South African English. Pdxuser (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the reliable sources have overwhelmingly abandoned "Swaziland," and Wikipedia's policy is for us to follow suit. Whether to capitalize it as eSwatini or Eswatini is a closer call. On balance, I lean toward eSwatini, due to it being more common in news media and overwhelmingly more common in the South African English dialect that the article is written in. However, the capitalization is a less significant matter, and whichever one is chosen, the article will note the alternate style. Pdxuser (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Would like to see more stories from each source to verify that this isn't just a one time thing for each of them.Say, a rundown of all stories in each since the name change. And stories that basically say "Hey, guys, you know that country Swaziland? Could you please start calling it eSwatini?" will count for nothing.--Khajidha (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I've been thinking anecdotally that reliable sources have gone very heavily over to eSwatini for some time. Have been meaning to do a more thorough evidence check but not found the time yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I'm leaning towards support, but want to see good evidence. Too many times I see people saying that "the country wants this and the UN followed it, so we should, too" but the country's wishes and the UN's policies are pretty much irrelevant to actual usage. I want to make sure we are following actual usage. --Khajidha (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't cherry-pick. Several sources have not done more than one original, non-wire story since the name change. The only inconsistency I found was with the Associated Press, which has done stories using eSwatini as well as Eswatini, but I chose an Eswatini article because it was more recent. Pdxuser (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, none of the stories I cited are about the name change itself, because Wikipedia's policy is to ignore those. Pdxuser (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
All I am going to say in response is to re-iterate two points from above:
1. The concept of WP:COMMONNAME is that wikipedia should follow natural English language use, and the WP:CRITERIA will not be followed if the "eSwatini"/"Eswatini" change is enacted. It is more important that the spirit of these two guidlines be followed than the strict mechanisations described within WP:NAMECHANGES, which is just a subsection of the WP:COMMONNAME guideline. (Namely, that the mechanisations within WP:NAMECHANGES describe that the majority of RS's be followed to demonstrate a change in name use, despite the relatively low level of actual adoption by English speakers.)
2. There is a currently a pending internal court case that has been raised in direct opposition to this change, and it would be logical to not be hasty and to await the verdict of said court case before making any drastic changes to the article.
I do not doubt that established media has adopted this name, you have clearly demonstrated above that they have, with copious amounts of evidence. However, this still does not reflect actual adoption and usage of the name, which logically remains low, despite the established media's widespread acceptance. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Given that you don't doubt that established media have adopted the name, your opposition no longer makes sense, and WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES say the exact opposite of what you're saying. Once it's established that reliable sources have changed, we should change. Court cases are irrelevant to that, since they have no bearing on the current common name. If the court decides to reverse the change, presumably RS would follow suit and so would we. But for now, it seems like we should be going ahead and making the move.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME does not state the opposite of what I have stated, it states that the majority of RS's should be used, which still remains "Swaziland" throughout this article despite the recent change (and in the history of these media outlets as well). My point above is that, in this case, WP:NAMECHANGES is in violation of WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME the latter of which it is just a subsection, due to WP:NAMECHANGES here violating the "natural language"/"naturalness" concepts present in both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. Surely, WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over WP:NAMECHANGES here, as this is just of subheading of former. I mention the court case because the official name change by the Swazi government could be undone anyway in a couple of months, at which point, I am sure, the media will immediately do a 180° shift on their adoption of this name. Just as they were so quick to accept it, I have no doubt they will be as quick to drop it. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, any exceptions being made for countries/states to violate what is natural common usage has been met with universal opposition thus far in a discussion begun on the talk page of Wikipedia:Article titles at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#When a country changes its name... (discussion about the WP:COMMONNAME policy). - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
You write that "the majority of RS's should be used, which still remains 'Swaziland' throughout this article despite the recent change." What reliable sources are you referring to that are still mostly using Swaziland? Pdxuser (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
These: Swaziland#References.
Yes they are historic references, but that is my point. "eSwatini" causes a conflict between WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:CRITERIA/WP:COMMONNAME, therefore we should go by what WP:COMMONNAME states as WP:NAMECHANGES cannot be used as described, due to the violation of the "naturalness"/"natural language" of eSwatini over Swaziland. Thus the more acceptable common name is Swaziland, due to the historic sources. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Besides, there are still media outlets that are less well established than the big media agencies you listed above that have not adopted the "eSwatini" name. e.g. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. Admittedly these do carry less weight than the large organisations you listed, but there is still an extant presence of media outlets that have chosen to not adopt it or are ill-informed of the term. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────"These: Swaziland#References": Not reliable sources cited in the article, current reliable sources out there. Largoplazo (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding to your point, it seems unreasonable to determine what the title should be based on sources from before the name change, when WP:NAMECHANGES explicitly says to use reliable sources from after the name change. Also, WP:COMMONNAME says it "prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria." This is the only specific test proposed in the policy page for attempting to objectively determine what meets the five criteria, including naturalness, and WP:NAMECHANGES just modifies that test to say that when there's been a name change, look at the reliable sources from after the change. I don't think there's really a conflict between COMMONNAME and NAMECHANGES. Pdxuser (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
"I don't think there's really a conflict between COMMONNAME and NAMECHANGES." That is a matter of interpretation. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
There's no conflict there because WP:NAMECHANGES qualifies WP:COMMONNAME. Since the whole point of WP:NAMECHANGES is to apply to cases like this (where there is a change declared in RL that sources may or may not have adopted), any such conflict would render WP:NAMECHANGES meaningless. The appeal to all the sources from before the name change would imply that we should never change an article name until many years after the name becomes common usage.
WP:COMMONNAME says that Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". WP:NAMECHANGES tells us that when judging what that is we should give extra weight to post-change sources, and change if they have changed. Ultimately, what matters here are the sources and particularly the sources written since April. Hence the survey above.
For my part, while I have my concerns (individual instances of usage do not imply policy on usage, so I'd much rather see style guides being cited than individual news articles), I think there's a pretty good case for change. Kahastok talk 19:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The only news sources I recall publishing multiple original stories about the country post-change were local media, which I included multiple examples from, and wire services. I only included one example from each wire service because I didn't want to seem to be padding the number of reliable sources by citing, say, six AFP stories on different prominent sites. Here, though, are some relatively recent AP stories mentioning the country[47][48][49][50], some from Reuters[51][52][53][54] and more from AFP[55][56][57][58]. The only news outlet I'm familiar with that lets you search their updated stylebook for free is the AP, which doesn't have entries for Swaziland[59] or Eswatini[60], but they do seem to have settled on Eswatini, while the other two are going with eSwatini. Pdxuser (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2018[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: Moved to eSwatini. WP:NAMECHANGE, WP:COMMONNAME and even a surprise appearance from WP:ENGVAR in the nomination all were used to support the move; meanwhile, WP:COMMONNAME was also used against the move (with the sources that back supporters and the sources that back opposers both falling under heavy attack). Which name is more WP:NATURAL was also brought up, with the idea that it is the old name Swaziland. Nevertheless, no real answer to the WP:NAMECHANGE argument (give more credence to sources posted post-change), let alone the WP:ENGVAR argument (go with South African English usage, all else being equal), was found. This article will be moved. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

SwazilandeSwatini – With the survey of reliable sources above, it is clear that Swaziland is not longer WP:COMMONNAME, with only one news outlet after the official name change using "Swaziland" in its article. WP:COMMONNAME uses the "common name" as determined by "its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources," which as can been seen above has virtually all shifted away from Swaziland. Whether to move it to eSwatini or Eswatini can be further discussed, but given that this article is mainly written in South African English, whose papers mainly use "eSwatini," it seems more appropriate to adapt the spelling "eSwatini," although clearly that can still be discussed. Regardless, it is time to move away from this not common name anymore. DTM9025 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I didn't really think this name would be taken seriously when it was first announced, but from the sources in the discussion above and anecdotal evidence, it seems clear that things have moved quickly and most English reliable sources now use the new name. I also think eSwatini is the correct capitalisation, again per sources. And the argument in the nom about southern African English is a persuasive one. I would expect to use Kenyan English in an article about Kenya, in a similar fashion.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, though I would caution that if the court case previously mentioned is expected to be resolved in the near future that we wait to see how it affects things. It would make little sense to change now if the situation were to reverse itself in a short time. If the court case is expected to not be resolved soon we can go ahead with the move now and decide on our response to it later. I just don't want us to be moving this multiple times in short order. --Khajidha (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    I searched for the court case and there was a lot of talk about it in early July, but nothing since. Do we know if its still pending? Either way, it doesn't seem like there's any imminent change likely so there's not much value in delaying when we don't know how long it will be. If we do have to change back again it's not the end of the world anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support When the legislative elections took place last month, nearly all media sources I read were using the new name. Considering the UN and several others organisations have updated as well, as mentioned on this page, it seem normal for wikipedia to follow suit.--Aréat (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Long overdue, it's clear that's what reliable sources are using at this point so we should too. Smartyllama (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I think that the above probably demonstrates that usage has changed. But I would find evidence from style guides and other descriptions of usage to be far more convincing. The advantage that these sources have is that they tell us what organisations' policies are (whether or not they are followed). Individual news stories tell us little more than the choice of a single writer and cannot be used to infer policies of writers or organisations. Kahastok talk 09:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - sources such as the BBC are now using the updated spelling - - Londonclanger (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The United Nations has the country listed as eSwatini. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment What the United Nations calls a country isn't a criterion under Wikipedia's guidelines for determining what the article on it will be titled here. Largoplazo (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not yet In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The Guardian seem rather inconsistent from one month to the other [61].--Aréat (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
And also, the fact that a few isolated sources here and there still use an old name is not in itself a reason to delay moving. The question is what the latest WP:COMMONNAME situation looks like, which means evaluating a wide range of sources. From the review in the section above, it seems like the majority have made the switch now.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This is rather why I ask for style guides. The the Guardian style guide commented either way, we'd know that one was the paper's choice and the other the writer getting it wrong. As it is, without a fairly serious study there's only so much we can say. Kahastok talk 08:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support move to Eswatini as that is the spelling that the U.N. and Britannica are using. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until I see a notable change in the following trend:[62] I will not be convinced that the "eSwatini"/"Eswatini" name is the primary name used in common spoken English over "Swaziland". Despite the widespread acceptance of this name by large established media organisations, the name is still not being used in common vernacular over "Swaziland". This may change in time of course, but it hasn't changed yet. I know that the majority of weighty reliable sources have now shifted their use to "eSwatini", which then complies with the technical aspects of WP:NAMECHANGES, but the change will violate the natural language statement in WP:COMMONNAME, and the naturalness point of the five points in WP:CRITERIA (possibly the recognisability point too). - Wiz9999 (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Similar to the Zaire/DR Congo name change about 20 years ago (yes I am old enough to remember that), which was initially sneered at but quickly accepted, this should be done sooner rather later. And also FIFA ([63]) and the Confederation of African Football have already done their change ([64]). Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not trying to have an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but if we move this one, we should probably also move East Timor to Timor Leste/Timor-Leste, and Ivory Coast to Cote d'Ivoire/Côte d'Ivoire. Also, how would the new name be sorted alphabetically? Under "E" for eSwatini, or "S" for eSwatini (since the "e-" is just sort of a grammatical prefix like in "d'Ivoire")? Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how that follows. What one country is called is irrelevant to what another is called. --Khajidha (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
That is precisely the problem. The claim by supporters of this move is that "Timor-Leste" and "Côte d'Ivoire" have a completely different situation, due to neither one of these terms being commonly used in English. Only the 'official names' of each nation are "Timor-Leste" and "Côte d'Ivoire", but the common names of them are "East Timor" and "Ivory Coast" respectively. The argument being made for change here is that "eSwatini"/"Eswatini" is the common name in primary use by English users, over "Swaziland" (this is not correct, see [65]), in addition to "Kingdom of Eswatini" being the new official name. The argument they are making is that the majority of official sources have adopted the "eSwatini" term and thus it is the most commonly used term. In all likelyhood, if the move were to pass, the spelling order would depend on which spelling was subsequently accepted "E" for "Eswatini" and most likely "S" for "eSwatini". But I still oppose the move in general, as per my opposition statement above, and my many comments in the previous sections above. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • East Timor and Ivory Coast are irrelevant because each case is considered on its own merits. Thus we moved Burma to Myanmar (eventually) because the common name in sources supported that, but we moved Cote d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast (the opposite move) because in that instance sources supported the English version not the government recommended French version.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not to mention the fact that English is an official language in Swaziland/Eswatini but not in those other countries, making the burden of proof lower for this caae.--Khajidha (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not saying that each case should not be judged on its own merits. What I am saying is that this case does not have sufficient merit to proceed forward with the change. This happens to be similar to how "East Timor" & "Ivory Coast" do not have sufficient merit to proceed forward with a proposed change to "Timor-Leste" & "Côte d'Ivoire". - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    English may be an official language, yes, but the most widely spoken language is SiSwati (95%), which also holds the status of "national language", thus giving it primacy. Anyhow, why should the burden of proof be lower for one state verses another on the sole basis of the language spoken within? To me that seems like double standards, and it should not be relevant to the English speaking community as a whole (for whom this article is intended). - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Very weak support - I actually wanted to Oppose on the basis that Swaziland is used a lot more - in the past month (on Google News) "Swaziland" gives you 13 pages[66] whereas "eSwatini" gives you 11 pages[67] which to me would indicate Swaziland is still the most commonly known/used name .... that being said respectable sources on both sides use either names so there's not really a case to oppose as such, I still believe per COMMONNAME the article should remain however like I said there's not really anything to oppose over as such. –Davey2010Talk 18:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Too early for that change. Let's wait for the literature and other reliable sources to make the new name a prevalent one.--Darwinek (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The survey of reliable sources above clearly shows that the literature and other reliable sources have moved on from Swaziland so it is definetly not too early. --DTM9025 (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We do not follow official usage. The proposed name is quite new and I suspect a majority of English speakers who have heard of Swaziland have never heard of Eswatini. We should wait for common usage to catch up. Given that the name change happend this year, usage has not remotely caught up. There is no rush: the present title is not wrong. Srnec (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME determines its criteria by "its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources," not by Google trends data. The survey of reliable sources above clearly indicate almost all reliable English sources now no longer use Swaziland. So yes, usage has definetly caught up and is now virtually unanimous. --DTM9025 (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I think that moving the page is the right thing to do now, since almost all websites refer to the country as "eSwatini" instead of "Swaziland" now. I also want to mention that the CAF and FIFA started to use the names "Eswatini" and "eSwatini" instead of "Swaziland" a few months ago. Ben5218 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per @Wiz9999. The Google Trends clearly show a move towards eSwatini, but it is still a long way from being the WP:COMMONNAME. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME determines its criteria by "its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources," not by Google trends data. The survey of reliable sources above clearly indicate almost all reliable English sources now no longer use Swaziland. --DTM9025 (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but under WP:NCGN we can use google trends data for geographic names, specifically in the section under Multiple local names, of which this "eSwatini"/"Swaziland" debate would potentially fall under. Also, @BrownHairedGirl I disagree with the perception that there is a move towards "eSwatini" in the trends data. If anything the data shows that the ratio between "eSwatini"/"Swaziland" usage has remained roughly the same since the official name change back in April. (This may change in time of course, but the current trend is that "eSwatini" is still proportionally low compared to "Swaziland"). - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Again. Not the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It is the common name according to the survey of reliable sources above. On what ground do you say it isn't?--Aréat (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
That is not a broad enough survey of reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide more, which are still using Swaziland, then? --Aréat (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Every source published before this year. Srnec (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:NAMECHANGES we "give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced". If we had to take full account of all pre-change sources, we wouldn't change any article name until many years after the new name became common usage. Kahastok talk 20:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I was unaware of that policy and it strikes me as misapplied in the case of countries. It is not comparable to Bruce Jenner becoming Caitlyn Jenner, or the Sears Tower becoming the Willis Tower. The period after the change over which it is reasonable to make an analysis should be longer, since you cannot expect all kinds of sources to respond to the name change (either by adopting it or ignoring it) in a short time. Books, e.g., are not (usually) published so fast. The exception would be when the country itself changes (i.e., if Saudi Arabia ceases to be ruled by the House of Saud). Srnec (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Again, the common name is still Swaziland in English. We will see in the next future.-Enzino (talk)
  • Support The above survey suggests eSwatini has been quickly adopted and is now the preferred name, especially in Southern African usage. The trend is quite clear in that regard. AusLondonder (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Maybe in the neighbouring Country South Africa the new name is used, in most English speaking countries still Swaziland is in use, e.g. Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, Pakistan, Singapore, maybe other countries in Oceania also. In other European countries with English as a foreign language also Swaziland is in use. So I think South African English is in absolute minority if you look on the topic globally. -- (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support eSwatini seems to be the name mostly used by reliable sources now. There is no point in continuing this because from here on out the trend will continue to move in favor of the usage of the nation's new name. Prancer16 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The support side has provided sources of the change to the new name. Most of the Oppose arguments are weak with little or no evidence, or inaccurate arguments. For example Google Trends (of course more people are familiar with the old name and will search for it, including things like "new name for Swaziland") or statements claiming common name in the absence of evidence, probably based on subjective bias, etc. It's clear from the evidence provided that the majority of current reliable sources have switched to the new name. Greenman (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

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

eSwatini vs. Eswatini[edit]

Closing this in favor of the clearer question below.
The following discussion 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.

Now that the move request has been completed in a civil manner (congratulations to the supporters of the move request for their well argued points), I wish to remind all involved, before the move proceeds, why the article currently lists two spelling formats for "eSwatini"/"Eswatini". Hopefully we can have as equally a civil discussion on the matter as we have done in the previous move request.

To reiterate, the reason why the article currently lists "eSwatini"/"Eswatini" with the latter spelling whenever its 'OFFICIAL name' "Kingdom of Eswatini" is used is due to this full term being the only spelling officially being used by the Swazi government when referring to the country/state in English (see [68][69][70]). However, it has currently been assumed in the article that the most prevalent spelling format for the country's 'COMMON name' is actually "eSwatini". This is most certainly due to the influence upon English from the spelling in the local siSwati language, which is undisputedly spelled correctly as "eSwatini" (in siSwati "Swatini" is the base term, which is then modified by putting the "e" prefix on the base to designate its required proper use as the name of the country/state). However, this spelling convention may or may not be consistent with prevailing current usage in English, as the sources seem fairly split down the middle as to which spelling should be used. The reason why the Swazi government chose to spell this term so differently in English when using the full official country name "Kingdom of Eswatini" remains a bizarre mystery. Nevertheless, their adoption of this format seems to have spawned the usage of "Eswatini" as a possible spelling format in English in competition to the "eSwatini" loanword coming directly out of siSwati into English ("eSwatini" has been the name of the country/state in local siSwati for decades, regardless of the use of "Swaziland" in English). This has resulted in clear confusion in media outlets, with approximately half of them adopting one or the other spelling format.

The question I ask to all is; are you satisfied with the current spelling arrangement, and do you support maintaining it, or do you feel the article now needs to use the "Eswatini" spelling throughout instead? - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please state in bold whether you are in favor of Support eSwatini or Support Eswatini. All statements simply stating 'Support' will be understood to be equivalent with Support eSwatini, and all statements simply stating 'Oppose' will be understood to be equivalent with Support Eswatini. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support My current opinion is that the status quo is to be maintained, unless sources in future predominantly start to use the "Eswatini" spelling over the "eSwatini" spelling. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support maintaining status quo of "eSwatini" per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I was under the understanding that the above move request already decided this issue, but just in case there's doubt, yes I also support eSwatini rather then Eswatini, per WP:COMMONNAME. I think the status of the "official name" is debatable, as I've mentioned to Wiz9999 before. Third party sources, for example, [71] say explicitly that the official name is "Kingdom of eSwatini". Whereas the assertion that it is "Kingdom of Eswatini" looks like WP:OR since it was established by inferring somethign from the government's website rather than it actually being explicitly stated anywhere. But either way, the common short name is eSwatini. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, this spelling usage by the government is not just based on the website, but also by publications in the swazi government gazette (see [72], as originally posted by QBear above). Now, seeing as this image appears to be just be a photo of a document instead of a pdf copy, I can understand how its legitimacy could be questioned. However, media reports that mention the specific "Legal notice No. 80 of 2018" document also seem to reflect the fact that it uses "Eswatini" in its spelling of "Kingdom of Eswatini" (see [73]). Besides all this, the UN[74] and other organisations that the Swazi government has made applications for an official name change have accepted the country with the spelling format "Kingdom of Eswatini" when using the country's official name. The evidence does really seem support that this is the 'proper' way of spelling the official name. The common name however, well that is a separate issue. Both spellings do appear to be used by different media outlets, which is why I raised this discussion. However, it does appear to me to make the most sense to not move away from "eSwatini" as the spelling for the common name, due to the crossover from siSwati into English, etc. as I explained above. We will see if other contributors here have the same consensus or not. - Wiz9999 (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think it counts as a WP:COMMONNAME yet. PrussianOwl (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - As mentioned above, I personally prefer eSwatini and would prefer to maintain the status quo. I am open to hearing arguments for Eswatini though and do think this discussion is warnted. For now though, I think that we should keep the status quo untill there has been a shift in usage. --DTM9025 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the status quo. Support change to Eswatini Our decision to change the name from Swaziland to the current one was made upon the number of sources, either of government, international entities or newspapers using the new name. I think we should decide in a similar way on the spelling. On first look, it seem pretty much evenly split, yet I can't help but notice the swazi government, all of the local swazi newspapers, as well as most of the govermental entites use the "Eswatini" spelling. In my opinion, the Eswatini spelling thus has more "weight". We may need to wait a bit more to see what eventually take roots, but if I had to chose right now I would go with the latter for this reason, which also has the merit of being the usual english way to capitalise words.--Aréat (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (note that I did not add this "oppose" comment myself; it's unclear to me what I'm supposed to be opposing. I only added the following text, intended as a comment:) I believe the article should at the very least be moved to Eswatini because "eSwatini" is clearly not a valid English spelling (nor is it the common name, because most English speakers know the country as Swaziland). I also don't support the move from Swaziland in the first place; are we going to move other countries to their local forms, e.g. Deutschland, Polska, Latvija, or does this privilege only apply to African countries? --Tataral (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Your argument was, along with others, already discussed thoroughly, so please read the previous discussions to find out what all the pertinent responses are instead of soliciting people to repeat them all over again here. The short answer is that we aren't remotely concerned with what any of these countries "should" be called in English but what they are being called. Largoplazo (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tataral: Look, I wasn't pleased with the result either, as I strongly supported sustaining "Swaziland" as the title. However, I cannot deny that the move request was performed correctly, and I cannot deny that there was far more support for moving the page then for not moving the page. Therefore, I can accept the results or be obstinate about it. I choose to accept the current circumstance and try to address the resulting consequences. Then I can do what I can to mitigate, as much as possible, the fallout of the move decision, even though I opposed it. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia article titles are based on WP:COMMONNAME. The common name is Swaziland. I also note that this move proposal was already rejected twice over a short time span. Starting endless new move requests when your proposal is already turned down multiple times is not a good basis for consensus on the article title. --Tataral (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of the Oppose tag I added to your comment, I did state in the description of that edit that you should just revert it if you were unhappy with my addition. In future, please use Comment if you wish to simply comment on the ongoing poll to make it clear that you do not wish to be counted either for or against a proposal. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you proposing that South Africa is the suzerain of Eswatini? I don't think that South African usage matters one whit. The principle of ENGVAR is based on 'national' varieties of English, and Eswatini is clearly not part of the South African 'nation'. RGloucester 21:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
eSwatini is an enclave of bordered on three sides by South Africa; it is to be expected that English usage in the two countries will be similar unless there is evidence to the contrary. It is also expected that the local sources would be most aware of the "correct" usage; it would be very difficult for me to go from the United States to eSwatini to research the matter, but much easier for South Africans. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
That's not what either WP:TITLEVAR or WP:ENGVAR says. South African usage should not dictate how we refer to Eswatini, anymore than should Australian or British usage. In any case, WP:COMMONALITY applies. RGloucester 22:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe there is enough variation between the English spoken in Swaziland, from the English spoken in South Africa, essentially meaning they are both using "South African English" and would not be considered to be separate dialects by a linguist. This is just an opinion though, only a linguist could properly weigh in on the matter, you don't have to take my word for it. However, if you agree with me, then due to the widespread use, number of speakers, and overall dominance of the much larger South Africa vs. the much smaller Swaziland, then Swaziland would be considered effectively a part of South Africa, linguistically speaking, and the ENGVAR would apply here for South African English. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
ENGVAR has nothing to do with dialects. This encylopaedia is not written in dialects. There are different forms of standard written English in use in different countries, and we allow the use of these varieties, which largely differ only in spelling, but regionalism never takes precedence over WP:COMMONALITY. But, again, this discussion is beside the point. ENGVAR is about national varieties of standard written English, not about linguistics, not about dialect. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion. RGloucester 22:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
But the local sources in the country itself use Eswatini. Surely you can't say the source of a neighboring country are more local than the source in the country itself.--Aréat (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Support Eswatini – In as much as both forms are used, I think we should use 'Eswatini', as this is more natural in English, and avoids WP:ASTONISHing our readers. The American state department and British foreign office both use 'Eswatini' clearly is a valid option. From an aesthetic and stylistic point of view, 'Eswatini' makes more sense. There is no reason to go out of our way to use an irregular form when reliable sources use the natural one as well. See WP:NATURALNESS and WP:COMMONALITY. RGloucester 21:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Meaning you 'Oppose' the proposal to continue using eSwatini? - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I would support standardising on 'Eswatini'. RGloucester 22:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Eswatini This should have been decided BEFORE the page move and name change edits were done. That said, fully agree with RGloucester. --Khajidha (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Meaning you 'Oppose' the proposal to continue using eSwatini? - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I really think you should edit your question and ask for everyone to simply state in bold whether they're in favor of eSwatini or Eswatini. I'm under the impression some users here are misinterpreting the vote with the switch from Swaziland.--Aréat (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The whole conversation should be restarted. As it is currently written, "Support" means the same thing as "Support eSwatini" but not "Support Eswatini". And "Support Eswatini" means the same thing as "Oppose". That is a good recipe for a totally messed up vote. DO NOT just edit the proposal again, as that confuses the issue as to what each comment here was referring to. --Khajidha (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Frankly this needs to be redone anyway, as it is becoming clear that a move proposal request is needed for this now, as it is starting to seem like roughly half the users are for a change to 'Eswatini' and half are for keeping the status quo 'eSwatini'. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
As I said, the question of whether to use "eSwatini" or "Eswatini" should have been posed before the article was moved in the first place. Yes, the decision was to move FROM Swaziland, but the question of exactly how to present the new name should have been settled before the move was actually done. --Khajidha (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiment. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
If you really need it spelled out, then yes. I am for standardizing on Eswatini. --Khajidha (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we do need this, just see all the confusion that happened when Tataral above was not clear that his statement was just a comment. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
"All the confusion" happened because this poll iwas horribly malformed from the beginning. --Khajidha (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Eswatini: If the sources are really split in half and both spellings are equally common or widespread, then we should adopt the spelling that (1) is officially adopted and (2) conforms most to the usual English spelling of proper nouns. chi (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2018 (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 24 October 2018[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: Consensus is to move to Eswatini. Consensus is most reliable English sources are going with the more conventional spelling. (non-admin closure) В²C 19:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

eSwatiniEswatini – In light of the recent move of the article to "eSwatini", it has become clear that it needs to be decided which spelling format to use for the article's title. Yes, this should have been decided prior to the move request away from "Swaziland", but unfortunately this did not happen this way. Now that the move has already been completed, it still needs to be decided which spelling format to use.
Do you support the move of this article to "Eswatini"? If so please use "Support Eswatini" or use "Support eSwatini" if you feel that we should keep using "eSwatini" instead.
Note: This is NOT a discussion on reverting the name back to "Swaziland", as that move discussion was already conducted above in the 12 October 2018 move request. If you wish to further discuss that issue please do so in another section, or use "Comment" if you feel it relates to this spelling change for some reason. Wiz9999 (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Eswatini - just simplify it. No need to have both choices given as "support", you're just asking for more confusion. --Khajidha (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, this isn't really a move discussion, per se, it is more a clarification of the result of the move discussion. --Khajidha (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is a move discussion, as there will be a page move made if "Eswatini" is accepted. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's a move discussion. The article's at one place. The outcome will be either "moved" or "not moved". One can support the move or oppose the move. There's nothing here that calls for special instructions on how to cast one's !vote. Largoplazo (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The move discussion was phrased as to be "away from Swaziland" with "eSwatini" or "Eswatini" being set aside for further discussion. Am I the only one who saw that as saying that the process would go 1) decide whether to move at all, 2) decide what format to move to, and ONLY THEN 3) actually move? --Khajidha (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
It was my understanding that this would be what would occur as well, which is why I opened the previous section. I did this after the previous move discussion closed. However, the page was then moved to "eSwatini" two hours after I created the section, in defiance of my discussion request on the spelling issue. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Besides, the move request was from Swaziland to Eswatini, so it shouldn't have been moved to eSwatini in the first place without a discussion. --Aréat (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the move request was to "ESwatini", with the double capitalization meaning that the display title template would be used. However, the mention that the eSwatini/Eswatini issue would be discussed later made me (and apparently others) think that that choice was just to have something in the discussion title. The written request seemed to be saying, "don't worry about capitalization yet, we'll figure that out if we actually decide to move". --Khajidha (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • eSwatini − I support keeping the title of the article as "eSwatini". The 'OFFICIAL name' is "Kingdom of Eswatini", which is where this new "Eswatini" spelling format originated from. However, (when not considering the term "Swaziland") the spelling that should be used for eswatini, if it is to be considered the 'COMMON name', should be "eSwatini". This is due to the origin of this word in English as a loanword out of siSwati ("eSwatini" has been the name of the country/state in local siSwati for decades, regardless of the use of "Swaziland" in English. In siSwati "Swatini" is the base term, which is then modified by putting the "e" prefix on the base to designate its required proper use as the name of the country/state). The reason why the Swazi government chose to spell this term so differently in English when using the full official country name "Kingdom of Eswatini" remains a bizarre mystery. At this point in time, both spellings seem to be in common use by media outlets in a roughly 50%/50% split. If the spelling "Eswatini" starts to show prominence one day then the page can be moved to this spelling format then, otherwise the status quo should be maintained as "eSwatini". See my many comments in the above sections on these term/spelling issues. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on procedural grounds. Stare decisis for now. Out of the Support !votes that led us this far and that mentioned either spelling, one mentioned only the "E" spelling, one mentioned both spellings, and all the rest mentioned only the "e" spelling. Largoplazo (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. The capitalisation issue was part and parcel of the RM above and this version found consensus, so no need to keep flogging this.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
This was absolutely not the case, it very clearly said in the RM above: "Whether to move it to eSwatini or Eswatini can be further discussed". No consensus was reached on a spelling format, it was not discussed, only consensus was reached on the principal of which term to use, as this was by far the greater issue at hand. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Not my sentiment as well. We discussed on the move from Swaziland, but not on the exact spelling of the new name. It seem apparent that several of us in favor of a move expected the discussion to switch to it once the change was approved, and ended up surprised by the sudden move to eSwatini.--Aréat (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Eswatini: It is mentioned that the sources are split in half and both spellings are equally common or widespread. Therefore, all else being equal, we should favour the spelling that (1) is officially adopted and (2) conforms most to the usual English spelling of proper nouns.
I would also hardly call eSwatini the "status quo", seeing as it has only just recently been hurriedly renamed. chi (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
It is the status quo as it is being used in the article's body whenever eswatini is mentioned (not just the title, which was a recent change). However, when the official name is used in the article, then "Kingdom of Eswatini" is used, which is correct, despite the confusing usage. Don't blame editors for this, blame the Swazi government for creating this confusing circumstance by adopting a spelling that was never used prior to their name change announcement in April. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Eswatini – In as much as both forms are used, I think we should use 'Eswatini', as this is more natural in English, and avoids WP:ASTONISHing our readers. The American state department and British foreign office both use 'Eswatini' clearly is a valid option. From an aesthetic and stylistic point of view, 'Eswatini' makes more sense. There is no reason to go out of our way to use an irregular form when reliable sources use the natural one as well. See WP:NATURALNESS and WP:COMMONALITY. RGloucester 13:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Eswatini for now per the arguments presented by editors Χ and RGloucester above. I would also note that the eSwatini proponents only succeeded in moving the article to that title just recently, after their proposal had already been rejected twice this year. I don't consider this a very good basis for a consensus on the article title. It is likely that editors who aren't as invested in the attempt to move the Swaziland article to eSwatini would get worn out by the endless (three in a short time span) move requests created by eSwatini proponents when their previous proposals failed. At the very least least we should use the English spelling of this new name (or should we also move Russia to Росси́я?) Surely the exact spelling was never the issue of this most recent RM; the main issue of that discussion was whether to ditch the English WP:COMMONNAME Swaziland in favour of a local form, a highly problematic and contentious issue in itself. --Tataral (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Eswatini - if it is 50:50 for 'eS' or 'Es' in equally important sources, thus both equally common, Wiki should prefer the one which makes more sense and logic (long name Eswatini-> short name Eswatini) and meets English spelling conventions (1st letter capitalized). Or in this 50:50 case prefer the one with more official recognition among government agencies in English speaking countries. IMHO the previous move was hasty, everyone was happy to get rid of Swaziland but it was not decided which variant of eswatini is the correct one to move it to... - That's why don't say "eSwatini" is status quo, it was justed rushed mistake and it can still be undone :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Eswatini - As stated above, our decision to change the name from Swaziland to the current one was made upon the number of sources, either of government, international entities or newspapers using the new name. I think we should decide in a similar way on the spelling. On first look, it seem pretty much evenly split, yet I can't help but notice the swazi government, all of the local swazi newspapers, as well as most of the govermental entites use the "Eswatini" spelling. In my opinion, the Eswatini spelling thus has more "weight". We may need to wait a bit more to see what eventually take roots, but if I had to chose right now I would go with the latter for this reason, which also has the merit of being the usual english way to capitalise words.--Aréat (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – The Swazi mission to the UN uses 'Eswatini', as do official documents they release. In addition to the American and British foreign office examples listed above, the Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian foreign offices do the same. Britannica also uses 'Eswatini', which is relevant, as the usage of other encyclopaedias is mentioned as being of significant weight in the WP:UCN policy. RGloucester 20:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Eswatini - As others have stated, if the English media has a 50/50 split, the name that makes the most grammatical sense should be used. While there is good reason that it is eSwatini rather than Eswatini in Swazi, this does not mean that that name should be transliterated into English. We don't do this in any other language even if they do have the same grammatical rules as English (Munich, not Muenchen; Germany, not Deutschland; etc.), so I don't see any real reason to make an exception in grammar rules, especially because it confuses readers when something so significant, such as a nation's name, does not follow standard English grammar conventions. In addition, as RGloucester points out, the Swazi mission to the United Nations uses Eswatini, the official name of the nation is Kingdom of Eswatini, and while there is some presence of eSwatini, most Swazi organizations use Eswatini. Therefore, until the Swazi government clarifies, we should us Eswatini.
  • "Swazi"? What are these "Swazi" of whom you wrote? Surely the point behind "eSwatini" is that it's the country of the Swati people (or the emaSwati). Largoplazo (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything that would suggest that the usage in English of the Swazi name for the country has any implications for the terms for the people or their language. --Khajidha (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Swazi is still a perfectly acceptable term to use to describe the people and/or language of the Swazi/Swati ethnicity that exists in approximately equal numbers in South Africa and in neighboring Swaziland. Just because the common name of the state has possibly changed does (A) not mean the English version of the language's name or the English version of the ethnicity's name will have necessarily changed, and (B) it also does not mean that all English speakers HAVE to use it or accept the "eSwatini" term. Many will undoubtedly still prefer "Swaziland", as that is the term they have used since they were children (such as myself), its possible to have multiple names for places in English without there being a problem caused in normal English communication (See List of alternative country names for a list of many of them). It is why redirects exist (WP:OTHERNAMES). - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Eswatini: The official name of the country is “Kingdom of Eswatini”, Eswatini is used in Eswatinian government documents, U.N. uses Eswatini, U.S. Department of State uses Eswatini. It’s pretty clear that the official English name for the country is Eswatini. (As a sidenote, I think that the rulers of Eswatini made a mistake and should have chosen Swati or Swatia as the official English name for their country. But that’s not for me to decide, of course.) (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Eswatini as per above and as per official usage by the government of Eswatini. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 19:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have noticed that the Government now uses Eswatini on their official page - [75] although it would be worth finding an official act renaming the country for final conclusion.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe that was brought up in a previous discussion, but I'm not sure where. I remember hearing that it was officially Eswatini. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm fine with both "Eswatini" and "eSwatini" but I would oppose "ESwatini" with two consecutive capital letters. Regardless of the outcome, I think we should be consistent throughout the article. I noticed that the article uses possible variation of Eswatini in the earlier parts of the article, and then it goes on to consistently call the country "Swaziland" in the later parts of the article. I think it's fine to continue referencing "Swaziland" in sections focusing on history, but we should use the article name in the majority of references to the current day country. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 14:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Clarification: If the outcome is for "eSwatini", there's no way to force the underlying title to be "eSwatini", because Wikipedia titles always begin with a capital letter. We can only use the template, as is being used now, to display the title with the lower-case first letter. Largoplazo (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Clarification: "Swaziland" occurrences throughout this article (bar historical references) will in large part be changed once this move discussion on spelling has been concluded. - Wiz9999 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for these clarifications. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 16:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Eswatini Based on secondary source and some primary (such as [76] stated above). Matthew hk (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Eswatini After much consideration, I am ready to !vote. I think the best course of action is to use "Eswatini" primarily as it's what the Eswatinian/Swazi government uses, and it's what I'm seeing many sources use. We can - and almost certainly will - continue to note that in the Swazi language, weSwatini / eSwatini is the name used, but the official name is in fact Eswatini. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 16:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

"formerly known as Swaziland"[edit]

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.  — 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)
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: [77]. 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: [78], [79], [80]. - 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 Wiz9999's comments. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Peter coxhead. 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:

  • "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."

I would like to point out that, as far as I understand, the constitution of Swaziland is written only in English.[81] [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:

An Act to provide for the constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland, 2005.
ENACTED by the King and the Parliament of Swaziland
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.

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 [82], the US Law Library of Congress [83], the Canadian government [84], the Sydney Morning Herald [85], the BBC [86], [87], [88], Deutsche Welle [89], [90], the South China Morning Post [91], Amnesty International [92], and many others. The Washington Post has used "Swaziland (now eSwatini)" [93]. Encyclopaedia Britannica uses "Eswatini, officially Kingdom of Eswatini, Swati Umbuso weSwatini, previously called Kingdom of Swaziland".[94]

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 [95], 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)
Wiz9999, 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.'"[96] 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)
Wiz9999, 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)

Renaming 435 categories[edit]

Please see this discussion at CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks to @Lugnuts for posting this notification.
I just want to add that this is a BIG renaming. It consists of Category:Swaziland and 434 of its sub-categories. It would helpful to have input from members of this project, on the CFD page at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 5#Swaziland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


Has any consensus been reached on whether the demonym "Swazi" should be replaced with something else?

We currently have Category:Swazi people and its subcats, plus others giving a total of 163 categories using the word "Swazi". If there a clear consensus to change the demonym, I would be happy to do another mass CFR like the mass renaming proposal which I started earlier today for 435 categories containing the word "Swaziland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

As far as I am aware, there has been no change to the demonym in recent years. The English translation of "siSwati" (the term for "Swazi language" in the local language) is still "Swazi", and the English translation of "emaSwati" (meaning "Swazi people" in siSwati) is still "Swazi". Unless something has changed that I am unaware of, in English "Swazi" remains an acceptable means of referring to the language and the people that inhabit Swaziland and South Africa in roughly equal numbers. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Replacing mentions of "Swaziland" with "Eswatini" in all articles[edit]

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):

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 Peter coxhead 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 @IamNotU: '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 Wiz9999. 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)
Khajidha, 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?
  1. Simunye (population 5,633) is a sugar mill town on the lowveld in eastern Swaziland.
  2. Simunye (population 5,633) is a sugar mill town on the lowveld in eastern Swaziland (officially Eswatini).
  3. Simunye (population 5,633) is a sugar mill town on the lowveld in eastern Eswatini.
  4. Simunye (population 5,633) is a sugar mill town on the lowveld in eastern Eswatini (Swaziland).
  5. Simunye (population 5,633) is a sugar mill town on the lowveld in eastern Eswatini (formerly Swaziland). [Edit: added for completeness]
  6. 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)
Khajidha, 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 [97], the US Law Library of Congress [98], the Canadian government [99], the Sydney Morning Herald [100], the BBC [101], [102], [103], Deutsche Welle [104], [105], the South China Morning Post [106], Amnesty International [107], and many others. The Washington Post has used "Swaziland (now eSwatini)" [108]. 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)

─────────────────────────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:

  • 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.

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)

"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 § "formerly known as Swaziland", 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[edit]

Amakuru, Khajidha, you have both reverted the edits capitalizing Highveld and Lowveld in the second paragraph, made by Mistakefinder 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  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, 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#Lowveld, 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)