Talk:Port Elizabeth

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


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

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

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

Nelson Mandela Metro[edit]

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


This page needs to be disambiguated from the Port Elizabeth in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (,_Saint_Vincent_and_the_Grenadines).

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

Defence against possible copyright violation[edit]

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

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Support. Apparently this article was originally at Port Elizabeth until June 2005 when an anonymous user did a cut-and-paste move to newly created Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape for unknown reason. There's no reason not to put it back. Station1 (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - no reason given for the move, and no alternative Port Elizabeth article to justify adding "Eastern Cape" to this one. Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'also' known as Nelson Mandela Bay'????[edit]

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

WP:SAFRICA assessment[edit]

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

Urban decay[edit]

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

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

2010 FIFA World Cup[edit]

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

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

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

Municipal Manager[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Missing Notable Person[edit]

Ashton Nyte was noted years prior as being a notable person from PE. Why has this been removed even though on his wikipedia entry it clearly states he was born here? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Another name change?[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

External links removed by LibStar (talk)[edit]

Wiki policy on external links states quite clearly

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

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


  1. ^ <
  2. ^ This means that if you cannot include the material in the Wikipedia article because it is copyrighted, then you may link to the copyright owner's page. This does not permit you to link to any page that is violating someone else's copyright. See WP:COPYLINK.
not vandalism that is ridiculous. LibStar (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@LibStar and Paul venter: The links removed by LibStar, and now by me, are not about the subject of the page directly, and hence do not belong. For more information about why they do not belong, read WP:ELNO, specifically #13, and the rest of the guideline. WP:ELYES is not a standalone piece of text.
Secondly, removal of external links is not vandalism. However, per WP:ELBURDEN, the undiscussed reinsertion of links is not the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thanks Beetstra. LibStar (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Mmmmmmmm....LibStar did far more than remove the link I added - he removed all the links but one repeatedly (a clear case of edit-warring) and the undiscussed removal of links is not the way forward either - some evenhanded criticism might give the appearance of objectivity. I have neither the will nor the energy to engage in a futile exchange, but a third (unbiased) opinion might be a good idea.....Paul venter (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
you need to accept you lost the discussion here and WP:LETGO. it wasn't edit warring so stop clutching on straws. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@LibStar: now, this is not a battleground either, so that is unnecessary language not aimed at improving the article.
@Paul venter: that also did not get to the level of edit warring, and if it was, it takes at least two to edit war. Also not aimed at improving the article. And if you are not willing to defend these links, they are certainly failing our inclusion standards - they are just not being worth including. —Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC) (fix ping Dirk Beetstra T C 06:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC))