Jump to content

Talk:Cape Verde/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 26 June 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The discussion below did not establish a consensus in favor of the proposed move. Station1 (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Cape Verde → Cabo Verde – official English name is now Cabo Verde as registered on ISO 3166-2. Eusergiofontes (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Hurricanehink: In a diplomatic note sent on November 27, 2013 the Embassy of Cape Verde requested that the United States Government change the name of the country from ‘Cape Verde’ to ‘Cabo Verde’. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names approved the change on December 9, 2013.
As a result, the National Hurricane Center now also uses the term "Cabo Verde". The British government used both in a press release, although the UK's ambassador said It is an honour and a privilege to be appointed Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Senegal and the Republic of Cabo Verde. In addition, BBC and Reuters have both used the updated name. Australia also uses the new name. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. So, some sources are still using the old name, but it looks like they haven't switched over yet. The fact that the US, UK, and Australia (the most populous English-speaking countries in the world) use the new name means that we should as well, IMO.
And, as mentioned above, here's a collection of some reliable sources that use "Cabo Verde":
And more. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you show us what the list looks like when you remove all the sources that automatically use the official name as declared by their own members or by countries with which they have diplomatic relations? As their choice is not independent of the declaration made by the government of the nation in question, these sources shed no light on WP:COMMONNAME. Taking them into account is contrary to the point of that guideline. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There's also the question of whether a request not to translate a common word (Cabo to Cape) is actually a name change. --Khajidha (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, I supported in the past, still do. In addition, the word "Cape" is not like Cape Cod or Cape Canaveral, but, as the article says, related to a landmass on the African mainland. To keep it at "Cape", despite the country's preferences, would be a disservice to the people living there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The landmass is known to English speakers as the "Cape Verde Peninsula", not the "Cabo Verde Peninsula". The logical conclusion of that argument is the opposite of the one you've drawn from it. As for the country's preferences, people should be opining here in the context of the guidelines that we have. The current guidelines demonstrate that abiding by a country's preferences isn't our priority (or else they would just say "Use the official name of the country"). If you want to dispute those guidelines, you should raise a discussion on the talk page for those guidelines, not in a discussion that's governed by them in the context of one article. Largoplazo (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Gotcha, yep, I stand by what I said, that the country of "Cape Verde" isn't an actual cape. I emphasize that because we probably shouldn't be translating "Cabo" in this case, because it's not actually a "Cape" (even though, yes, as you say, it was historically named for an actual cape). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a heck of a non sequitur. There's no provision here that says "What the official name is, is not the primary consideration; but if the commonly used English name has a literal meaning that's geographically inaccurate, then ignore what we just said and use the official name."
  • The official name is arguably "Cabo Verde". There's no provision here because this is a really unique case, and sometimes on Wikipedia, you have to go on a case by case basis. I'll point to the precedent we do have. For a long time, Wikipedia was torn whether or not to move Burma to Myanmar, which eventually it did in 2015, the same year as the country's first democratic elections, incidentally. The archipelago of islands off the west coast of Africa wishes to refer itself as "Cabo Verde". The United States government recognizes the name change. I'm emphasizing the fact that it's geographically inaccurate as maybe a consideration for supporting. It's a unique case, but one where I think the reader is less likely to be confused. Wikipedia is often the first or second hit in search engines. We need to consider our own policies' effect on the world. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand what you're asserting. I just don't see what this curiosity about its name has to do with the price of tea in China. It has no bearing on what the country is commonly known as by English speakers under the considerations called for under WP:COMMONNAME, nor is there any reason why the fact that you have observed would make WP:COMMONNAME inapplicable or trigger an exception to it. To me it's just a random factoid, not remotely material. Largoplazo (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That the name may be confusing is immaterial. The name is what it is. We called it "Cape Verde" before the official decree. In Portuguese, "cabo" means cape, so you might as well argue that Portuguese-speaking people should avoid the official name out of fear of confusing people. Are our users confused because we call Rhode Island "Rhode Island"? Largoplazo (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I know. you already said. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 04:55, 4 July 2019 (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.

Nomination of Portal:Cape Verde for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Cape Verde is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cape Verde (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 02:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of “Cabo Verde” (in Portuguese)

Well, it seems that everytime, after a long absence of mine, I find some mess up with the pages regarding Cape Verde. This time, in English Wikipedia.

The issue now is about the pronunciation (with IPA) of the words “Cabo Verde” in Portuguese. I am sorry but, there are two major mistakes that are being made here:

  1. Consulting Wikipedia, I couldn’t find anything that prescribes that the pronunciation of Portuguese words or expressions should be in European Portuguese. On the contrary, the page Help:IPA/Portuguese says “Neither variant is preferred at Wikipedia”. Showing the pronunciation of an endonym with the pronunciation of somewhere else just doesn’t make sense. It may look that someone is trying to say, somehow, that European Portuguese is “better” than Cape Verdean Portuguese or something like that. That goes against the neutrality rules of Wikipedia. Furthermore, the same Help Page says “(…) except in cases where a local pronunciation is clearly more relevant, such as a place (…) or an individual (…)”. No place can be more relevant than the name of the country itself! For us, Cape Verdeans, it shocks to see the name of our country referrenced with the pronunciation of another country. If you put Portugal’s pronunciation [ˈkaβu ˈveɾðɨ], why not putting Brazil’s pronunciation [ˈkabu ˈveʁʤi], Angola’s pronunciation [ˈkabu ˈve̞ɾde̞], and so on? Showing the Portuguese pronunciation of items related to Cape Verde in European Portuguese will mislead the users, they might think we talk like that.
  2. The second big mistake is showing it with a regional European Portuguese pronunciation. The lenition of the intervocalic voiced plosives is by no means standard in European Portuguese. After living more than 10 years in Portugal, I hardly ever heard it. And when I heard it, it was from people from the North of Portugal. The non standard status of that pronunciation can be checked in works from Mira Mateus or from Cunha and Cintra, or in phonetic dictionairies like (“cabo”, “verde”). As the Help Page itself says, the lenition of the intervocalic voiced plosives in Portugal “is by no means universal”. Note aside: have you noticed that the first time that the IPA pronunciation for “Cabo Verde” ([ˈkabu ˈveɾdɨ]) was introduced, was by an European Portuguese speaker?

Ten Islands (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Cabo Verde

Shouldn't the title of the article be Cabo Verde? Flags200 (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussed in June, no consensus to rename it. See above. Largoplazo (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Direct link: Talk:Cape Verde/Archive 2. In summary: no move because of Wikipedia:COMMONNAME policy. We don't use "official name" Cabo Verde but rather the name which is predominantly still in common usage. In the future, if a preponderance of sources change to "Cabo Verde", then a move is warranted. Right now mostly sources which automatically defer to official naming use it. Blue Danube (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Creole and Kriolu

Here is the section on Creole for Portuguese colonized places from the article Creole peoples in Wikipedia. By contrast, this article uses the terms Creole and mulatto and mestiços. Maybe the terms are all used in common parlance on the islands, but Kriolu is used twice, Kriolus never, Kriol never, criolos never, in this article on Cape Verde. Are the terms criolos, Kriolu, Kriolus, and Kriols still important? If they are, this article ought to use them. If they are not, the other article ought to mesh with this one, or say they are historical terms not in current use.

Maybe I am yielding too much to the demand of software to have spellings match exactly -- when all these words seem like spelling variations of creole. Is it that writing in English we ignore the name in the local language in the article about the country, whose local languages do not include English?

Excerpt from Creole peoples artcle Portuguese Africa

The crioulos of mixed Portuguese and African descent eventually gave rise to several major ethnic groups in Africa, especially in Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé e Príncipe, Ziguinchor (Casamance), Angola, Mozambique. Only a few of these groups have retained the name crioulo or variations of it: 

   Cape Verde
   the dominant ethnic group, called Kriolus or Kriols in the local language; the language itself is also called "Creole";

   Guinea-Bissau
   Crioulos

   São Tomé and Príncipe
   Crioulos

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prairieplant (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There are two arguments made here in favor of the move. One is that WP:COMMONNAME is not relevant. That is really, really, really really really wrong. There was a second argument introduced later, a legitimately interesting one, that "Cape Verde" actually isn't the common name in reliable sources anymore (since 2013). It's a plausible argument that might have actually carried the day. Yet reliable sources cited to back that argument were few and far between. Over 30,000 characters in this move request, and maybe five sources linked in the argument to support the move, none of which compared to the very impressive Google Ngrams.

Many references were made to the successful move request two years ago of Eswatini, a close I am VERY familiar with. Take a look at the reliable sources that were marshaled together to show that the common name of Eswatini had changed; these sources were frequently referenced by supporters of that move, proving that reliable sources supported the new name. WP:RS is still the core of Wikipedia. If you want this name changed, prove that the common name in reliable sources is Cabo Verde. And please, the lack of civility on both sides is embarrassing - stay WP:CIVIL and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, y'all. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 01:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


Cape Verde → Cabo Verde – Cabo Verde is the official name of the country. Despite the common nomenclature of the country in the English-speaking world, Cabo Verde was officially renamed in 2013. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Station1 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Since the criterion is "most common", not "new and less common but by only a small gap", you've supported your !vote to make the change with an argument that supports leaving it as is. Largoplazo (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The name was officially changed in 2013. 7 years doesn't seem like a recent change to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Even WP:NAMECHANGES says that if "reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well". You and the original poster both admit that current usage is still in favor of Cape Verde, so you are actually arguing against yourselves. --Khajidha (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
In 4 days no supporter has made change my mind to say "Yes, let's adapt the Portuguese official name". Nothing has changed since 2013 and 2016, and although more source use Cabo, it, and I cite, "[is] the common nomenclature of the country in the English-speaking world". (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Swaziland is now Eswatini, yet many English speakers still refer to it as "Swaziland." Also, Macedonia is now North Macedonia, yet usage of "Macedonia" is still incredibly common in English. Usage of "Cabo Verde" has increased in recent years, especially among the Atlantic Hurricane community. For example, there isn't a single reference to "Cape Verde" in this article, as opposed to the multiple references of "Cabo Verde." IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that "Cabo Verde" should become the title of this article because a discussion at Talk:Eswatini reached a consensus that "Eswatini" had come to surpass "Swaziland" as the common name for that country, rather than based on evaluation of whether "Cabo Verde" has surpassed "Cape Verde"? The latter evaluation needs to take into account more than possibly only one editor's naming choice in one article here on Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Asking you whether what you said means such-and-such is not putting words in your mouth. I asked you that because it very much sounded like what you were suggesting, so I sought your verification. If that isn't what you meant, then, at the moment, what you consider the relevance of Eswatini and North Macedonia to this discussion to be is opaque to me and I don't know why you brought them up. If you didn't mean that, and you're looking to be understood, rewording what you'd said is a useful approach. Largoplazo (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In case my point wasn't obvious enough, both Eswatini and North Macedonia were changed to their official names because "consensus" was "reached," in spite of their common English names. Yet multiple people in this discussion (who probably aren't even from Cabo Verde) have opposed based purely on WP:COMMONNAME. So now, the discussion is stacked against support. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In both of those cases the conclusion was that actual usage had changed so that Eswatini and North Macedonia were more common in new usage. The point here is that, despite the CV government's request, usage of Cabo Verde is still far less common than that of Cape Verde. --Khajidha (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Google Trends isn't how we make this determination. Apparently the consensus didn't agree with Google Trends. You're diverting attention to these other countries for which a discussion has already been held and a consensus reached for the purpose of rearguing the case for those countries here. You've explained why you thought that what happened for those countries is relevant to this, but that reason is based on false premises regarding the outcome for those countries. Largoplazo (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Your reasoning is based on false premises. My reasoning is solid. Do you see now why you can't just accuse people of false reasoning? We can endlessly keep accusing each other of this and that, but at the end of the day, it's completely unproductive. So I recommend that you stop making baseless accusations. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • And there are examples of other countries that are at their common English name instead of their official name, such as Ivory Coast and East Timor. I actually participated in the Eswatini move discussion. I remember it well, as I was very surprised at how fast English usage changed when the name was changed, and thus I supported that move. But I oppose this one, as English language usage still has not shifted enough for "Cabo Verde" to be considered the most common English name for this country. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • We wait however long it takes for it to become the most common name in English, whether that is 1 year or 1,000 years. And we wait because we can't be sure of what the future will be. Perhaps "Cabo Verde" will continue to increase in usage, perhaps it will stall, or perhaps the trend will reverse. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • We have guidelines for this. "Get it over with" isn't one of them! When the guidelines are satisfied, that's when it will be time. You're welcome to disagree with the guidelines, but the place to discuss that is at the guidelines' talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Conversely, you could argue that Google Trends should change its findings based on Wikipedia consensuses. Google Trends has whatever algorithms it follows for measuring these things. We have ours. They're different. They're for different purposes. Ours is expressed at WP:COMMONNAME, which doesn't say "Go by what Google Trends says." Or Google Maps, for that matter. Largoplazo (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. When did I say I opposed it? (Answer: I didn't say what my position is.)
    1. I am capable of pointing out flaws in another person's arguments (either in the considerations they've chosen to apply or in their reasoning or both) without having reached a conclusion myself.
    2. I am capable of pointing out flaws in another person's arguments even if relevant considerations and valid reasoning have led me to the same conclusion as the other person!
    3. If I were to take a position on the question, my answer to either "Why are you in favor of it?" or "Why are you opposed to it?" would be "because that's my conclusion after applying WP:COMMONNAME".
  2. I don't know what you mean by "fail to recognize it".
  3. If you disagree with WP:COMMONNAME, the place to discuss that is at the talk page for its guidelines. Whether you agree with them or not as currently written, they are the guidelines that we are meant to apply. Largoplazo (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. This is essentially just a bunch of weasel words in an attempt to refuse to acknowledge my argument.
  2. The reason you don't know is because you are incapable of thinking outside the box.
  3. I don't disagree with WP:COMMONNAME. What I'm saying is that sometimes, it shouldn't be rigidly used to discourage name changes. Even the page for WP:COMMONNAME itself admits that although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. Seeing as how Encyclopedia Brittanica titles it Cabo Verde, I rest my case. Also, if you're not even going to bother "supporting" or "opposing," why are you still even commenting here? Unless you truly don't understand my argument, all you're essentially doing right now is gaslighting. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • (a) By "weasel words", I can only understand you to mean that it's wrong for me not to explain why something is true that you don't know to be true in the first place. That is bizarre. It's like you asking me why I think the moon is made of green cheese; me responding that I never said I think the moon is made of green cheese so the question of why I think that is a non-sequitur; and you complaining that I'm using weasel words. (b) I've discussed and addressed and analyzed and criticized your arguments at length. Therefore, to say that I have "refused to acknowledge" them is nonsensical. (c) The reason you don't know ...": Know what? Again, you aren't making sense. (d) This situation is of exactly the sort for which WP:COMMONNAME was crafted. Why is it, for seemingly every country that changes its official name, at least one contributor to the discussion insists that the guidelines crafted specifically to give us a consistent approach to every situation of its sort should be discarded because that one arbitrary country magically requires inconsistent treatment? Largoplazo (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I'm interpreting that as "Rigorous reasoning, holding me to my words, and following standard procedures are unbearable. It's unfair that you won't ignore the guidelines because I want you to, indulge fallacious arguments, and agree with the conclusions that I draw from them."
Also, when you look only at countries where English is a major language, Google Trends shows "Cape Verde" far ahead of "Cabo Verde". Largoplazo (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment As one of the few Cape Verdean editors here in Wikipedia, I would like to give my point of view. I think that, here in Cape Verde (or Cabo Verde, whatever you like), we don’t give much a damn about this issue. In English language documents issued here each one follows his/her choice, either keeping the English designation “Cape Verde”, either using the Portuguese designation “Cabo Verde”. The first thing I would like to point out is that, the document states that, for official purposes, the name should not be translated. Is a Wikipedia article an official document? Anyone who knows better, please, elucidate me. Second, it says that “the name shouldn’be translated”. I infer that that it means that the name should be prononced in Portuguese, also. Third, I don’t know why they decided to do that. I think it is because the different forms that the translation of the words “Cabo” and “Verde” may assume. A friend of mine has made a survey about how the name is said in different languages. The result was roughly this:
    1 — The majority of the languages of the Mediterranean region and the majority of Slavic languages translate “correctly”: “Cabo” is translated to “Cape” and “Verde” is translated to “Green”. That leads to several different results!
    2 — The majority of the languages of Northern Europe translate “wrongly”: “Cabo” is translated but “Verde” is not.
    3 — Some languages in Asia adapt the words “Cabo Verde” to their phonology.
    I hope my input will help you guys to make the best decision.
    Ten Islands (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Tip: As it was said, the Government of Cape Verde has requested that “the name should not be translated” for “official purposes”. The Government has never said that the demonym should be “Cabo Verdean” or anything else. Ten Islands (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Second tip: I am a strong supporter of coherence within Wikipedia. In the case of Eswatini, it was indeed a name change; in the case of Côte d’Ivoire, it was a translation, not a name change, and yet, Wikipedia has kept the name as Ivory Coast. Ten Islands (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I proposed this back in 2016, and I still think it should be moved. For what it's worth, the US state department made the switch back in 2013. As a result, any time there is a hurricane in the region, the National Hurricane Center calls it "Cabo Verde". As for common name, I wonder how much of an influence Wikipedia has in it still being called "Cape Verde". After all, the article is the top result, so renaming it would put the new, preferred country title would go a long way in changing the Google results. WP:COMMONNAME says that the name's usage in sources should be considered. BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, have both used the updated name. Admittedly, AP uses the old name. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Unfortunately for a lot of people in this discussion, Wikipedia doesn't get to decide what a country wants to call itself. The country is named Cabo Verde hence the article should reflect this. In my opinion, a country deciding its own name overrules WP:COMMONNAME whether we like it or not. Buttons0603 (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not putting words into anyone's mouth. I brought it up as a direct question to Buttons0603 asking if he would be for it, because by his logic on why this article should be moved, the Greece article should also be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "by his logic on why this article should be moved, the Greece article should also be moved" - Are you kidding me right now? This is pretty much a textbook example of putting words in his mouth. He never brought up Greece or the Hellenic republic, you did. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No, it is stating what the words Buttons0603 used seem to mean and asking if that was what Buttons meant. Buttons literally said "a country deciding its own name overrules WP:COMMONNAME". Rreagan brought up an example of a country that has "decided its own name", but which is still at its common name, and asked if Buttons was saying that that country needed to be moved, too. The question being is whether Buttons is arguing for a consistent rule or is just arguing for this particular case.--Khajidha (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 04:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Yup. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 04:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "Even though Wikipedia's policies and guidelines always take precedence on Wikipedia, in the case where something has not been codified on Wikipedia, there is nothing wrong in considering how reputable sources approach the same topic as a starting point or point of reference." As mentioned above, multiple "reliable" sources, such as the US State Department, NHC, B̶B̶C̶, Reuters, and Washington Post now refer to Cabo Verde, not Cape Verde. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The BBC, like this from a month ago, or this one from yesterday. I see. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I wont bother because I feel you are making stuff up. It's clear which way this is going anyway, and my spiderman suit has holes in the elbows. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 06:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll do one more then, just for you. Reuters -here. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 06:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You are correct here sorry. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
... and Cape Verde too. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll let you do the searching from now on, as it's clear you didn't do your due diligence before sealioning with me. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think a lot of the supporters of the move do not understand that the fact that results are inconsistent between different countries is not a problem with WP:COMMONNAME, it is the expected outcome. Some name changes take hold almost instantly, some after a short time, some after a long time, and some never do. Of course we will have some articles move and not others. That results from consistent application of the rule as it is. --Khajidha (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Anyways, I'm done arguing on this talk page. Far too many insufferable people have used faulty logic to deflect from, and derail my arguments. I implore anyone who comes across this discussion to support the renaming to Cabo Verde. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm curious as to how a source which shows majority usage of "Cape Verde" in the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, the US, India, South Africa, and Nigeria is supposed to support the idea that "Cabo Verde" is the predominant usage in English. --Khajidha (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The only argument for moving seems to be, what name English speakers should be using. There seems no question that the existing name is what they do use, so we should not move. Andrewa (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per NAMECHANGES and because of increasing trend towards Cabo Verde. This is part of a larger trend of many countries increasingly using native names in English, such as Cote D'Ivoire (previously Ivory Coast), or East Timor towards Timor-Leste. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It does no good to cite a guideline like NAMECHANGES and then make an argument that isn't based on the guideline you cited. NAMECHANGES doesn't call for us to change an article's title "If there's a new name and its use is increasing". Largoplazo (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2020 (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.

The audio file of the English pronunciation is wrong

The IPA text for the English pronunciation of "Verde" given in the article is either "vɜrd" or alternatively "vɜrdi", but the audio file doesn't pronounce it either of those ways. Instead, the audio file pronounces it as vɜrdeɪ. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the file File:En-Cape Verde-pronunciation.ogg, it is the English pronunciation. I think the English IPA is the incorrect one. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
File:En-Cape Verde-pronunciation.ogg does not give a source on the info page. Dictionary.com gives the correct English IPA pronunciation as "vɜrd".[1] Do you have a source that gives a different English IPA pronunciation? Rreagan007 (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The .ogg file is how I've always said it and heard it. --Khajidha (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Well it's not how I've always said it and heard it. So does this mean you don't have a source? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Why should anyone have a source for a file no one of us recorded? If the pronunciation is wrong you can go and remove it. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I simply mean a source that can support the pronunciation used in that audio file, such as the dictionary.com link I provided above that supports "vɜrd" as the English pronunciation. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cans48: as the uploader, could you clarify this or the English variant you use. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

❦Cans48☙•[t/c] 15:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Demonym Caboverdean

Can someone explain the demonyms, please? I keep running across 'Caboverdean' in a variety of sources, often related to culture or cuisine. It does not appear in the head for this article, and I cannot find a source for it. It would seem to be wrong as Cabo Verde is two distinct words, each capitalised, but I know there are counterexamples. Anyone have subject-matter expertise on this admittedly niche question? 70.126.148.159 (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

In Portuguese, I find both cabo-verdiano and caboverdiano. So maybe some are choosing to translate the latter directly to English–though, in that case, they'd be resorting to the country's name to get the "e" in front of the "an" in "Capeverdean". It seems odd to me, certainly not what we do with country names and their associated adjectives in English (in contrast to Portuguese, Spanish, and French, where these sorts of transformations are common). Largoplazo (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Map of Cape Verdean embassies

The map of countries with Cape Verdean embassies does not match the article text. "Angola, Brazil, China, Libya, Cuba, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Senegal, Russia, Luxembourg, and the United States maintain embassies in Praia." The map highlights Angola, Brazil, China, Ethiopia, Cuba, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Senegal, Russia, Luxembourg (presumably), and the United States.

I'm happy to correct this but of course I can't overwrite the image file. Agent Reynard (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The text refers to countries with embassies in cape Verde, whereas the map is for countries that Cape Verde has embassies in. That said, the text doesn't appear to be supported by its citation anymore, and the image doesn't cite a source at all. CMD (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Information needed under 'Largest cities' sub-heading

In my opinion, information is needed under the 'Largest cities' sub-heading in the article as there is currently nothing underneath it and in my opinion it is pointless having a sub-heading with no information contained within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a table of the largest cities sitting right under the heading. What kind of device are you using to look at the article? Largoplazo (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Good example as to why a single template shouldn't have its own section header. I've shifted it under the Demographics subsection. CMD (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

MpD or MPD

I don't give a flying flip about who's been president since when or how much money they have, so I'll stay out of that edit war. However, can we not make Wikipedia look stupid by using both MpD and MPD as abbreviations for the same thing on this page? Pick one and stick with it, please. --Khajidha (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Jorge Carlos Fonseca, the richest man in Cape Verde?!?

I did not deny since when he was president. What I meant to revert is the claim that he is the richest man in Cape Verde. I am pretty sure that the editor who put that meant well. However, if we intend to make Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia, one should check the sources of the sources.

You won't find anywhere else in the net something claiming that "Jorge Carlos Fonseca is the richest man in Cape Verde". When that article showed up, last year, it was seen as a joke, here in Cape Verde. This is a small country, everybody knows everybody and (unless the president has a fortune pretty well hidden) he doesn't show exteriors signs of wealth. The problem with the aforementioned article is that it doesn't link to any credible source, it doesn't talk about figures, it doesn't mention any informant. The one and only source that article cites is from a web site for opinion-based rankings, which was shut down for lack of credibility.

Cape Verde is not an "oil absolutist monarchy" or a "corrupt tyranny", the income of a president is fixed by law. You can read the law issued in 1997, aind it seems that it hasn't changed recently. Here in Cape Verde it is easy to any successful businessman/woman to earn more than 291.000$00.

The acronym of the party is "MpD", and not "MPD".

41.215.216.170 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

So then, with the edit summary "Explanation on the talk page", you again removed the material identifying the man as president of the country since 2011, without having explained that on the talk page, and despite your statement in your first sentence above that you don't deny its truth. Would you please reinstate the true and, in the context, relevant statement? Largoplazo (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Standard structure

@Chipmunkdavis: I had as an example the only featured article about a country: Canada. I still think that my structure of this article is better. But let us discuss. Why do you prefer a different structure for this specific article? --Somerby (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

There are 11 FA country articles. The standard structure is laid out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates, which allows for helpful segues between sections (History->Politics, Politics->Adm Div, Adm Div->Geography, Demographics->Culture), but there will be variation between country articles depending on the WP:DUE weight of various topics in coverage of those countries. CMD (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

A request on the creation of the location map of Santiago, Cape Verde and some other islands on the Commons page.

A request needs to be made on creating a location map photo of the island of Santiago in Cape Verde and could fit in a square format, in a map picture in a square fits in areas dominated by water. The map is to use World Data Base II data (also as World Database No. II data), uncertain there is a World Data Base Number III data.

Some map photos at tables of articles of stadiums even on the island on the English Wikipedia has been added, already I added on two pages of museums map location of the island.

Here is the additions I have put, and example of the coordinates are to be fit in a square:

{{en|Location map of [[:en:Cape Verde|Cape Verde]]}}
Equirectangular projection. Geographic limits of the map:
  • N: 17.4° N
  • S: 14.6° N
  • W: 25 9° W
  • E: 22.3° W

The map photo will have the municipal boundaries, another one will have protected areas. It will also has the main routes of the island, those part of the national highway network and the Assomada-Rincão Road.

Move the additions I made on a section of this page to the file titled Santiago, Cape Verde locator map.

Nearly two weeks after I put it on the category's talk page of Geography of Cape Verde on Wikipedia, little discussion has been made, I put this on this talk page to get a wider perspective for an acceptance of uploading the island's map used for one example: stadiums and museums with tables marking the actual location of it at a closer location . I put this on the Wikipedia page but upload it only on the Commons page and the map is even shown here on Wikipedia.

Also, add another location map photo for the island of São Vicente on Commons and in a square format as it fits in the area dominated by water. Another one is to made for the islands of Fogo (with one boundary showing that Achada Furna is mapped in Santa Catarina do Fogo), São Vicente with Santa Luzia, Sal and Santo Antão.

I put the nowiki templates on the Location map part on the display portion for the Commons page.

Thanks for this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Terriffic Dunker Guy (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Cape Verde"

Template:Largest cities of Cape Verde has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Miaandrade12.—Preceding undated comment added at 20:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Official name

Given that the government has requested other countries refer to it as "Cabo Verde," and they refer to the country as "Cabo Verde," even when writing or speaking in English, isn't referring to it as "Cape Verde" in the article title and throughout the article kind of dickish?Jeff (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

See the previous discussions on this topic in the box above. The general rule here is that we use the name by which the subject is mostly known in recent reliable sources in English. See WP:COMMONNAME. So if you want to call the reliable sources dickish, go ahead!
As the last discussion was a year and a half ago, it's feasible that reliable sources have since then shifted to a preference for "Cabo Verde". If you believe you can establish this, you can launch a new move request and seek a consensus for it. Largoplazo (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cape_Verde/Archive_2&oldid=1108769247"