Jump to content

Talk:Kimberley, Northern Cape

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Big hole

[edit]

Can someone get a picture of the Big Hole? --Slashme 12:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to Google Maps; unfortunately they only have low-res imagery of the area still, but hopefully one day it'll become better. You can see the hole (the largest) near the centre. dewet|™ 12:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Roberts

[edit]

First Reference "Roberts ... pp 45-49" should name title and first name, or not? --Helium4 (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Kimberley

[edit]

Kimberley is described as a city in the opening paragraph. The population is then mentioned to be 167 000 hich seems to be to high for the city alone, unless the suburbs of Kimberley are also included in this figure. We need the population of Kimberly alone without its suburbs. P.s. what date was it this population size ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.5.191.151 (talk • contribs)

In the old school system, the town became a city when the cathedral was built. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you subtract all the suburbs you'd be left with just the "naked" Central business district - with a negligible very small residential population. Roger (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, but what's the point - since when are cities delineated by their CBD's alone? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the point I'm making, the OP asked for the population of "Kimberley minus its suburbs", but "Kimberley minus suburbs" has no residential areas at all, or in other words, all Kimberley's residential areas are in the form of defined (and named) suburbs and townships. In terms of population "the city alone" is not a useful concept. It's as pointless as insisting that the population of London, UK should be defined as the population of only the City of London. Roger (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Settled then. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It now seems to be agreed that the population of Kimberley (or any other town or city for that matter) must include all its suburbs. So presumably Galeshewe should be included as well. The problem now is to pin down what that figure is! I've been looking at the Stats SA web, and found (more by luck than anything else) the 2007 Community Survey document http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/p03011/p030112007.pdf. On page 19 the Sol Plaatje Municipality is credited with a 2007 population of 243,018. The problem is that the Sol Plaatje Local Municipality incorporates a little more than just the city of Kimberley. So far as I'm aware (as a resident of Kimberley), Galeshewe and Roodepan do indeed form part of Kimberley, whereas Ritchie and Motswedimosa are situated some 35km SSW of the city. Bearing in mind the relatively small populations of the latter two townships, would 243,018 perhaps be a reasonable figure to use, citing the abovementioned Stats SA doc as the source? My apologies for jumping in at this late stage of this talk, I was wondering how best to approach the original (and to my mind perplexing) suggestion of counting only the CBD population. Barrydowns (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most SA city/town articles have a "standardised" population table, currently based on the 2001 Census as it is the most recent data avaiable with the required level of detail. The 2007 survey data is only at municipal level. I've asked User:Underlying lk to help out as he/she seems to be the editor responsible for most of the demographic data in SA place articles. Roger (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll bow out now and leave it to you and Underlying. You both appear to be far bettered equipped than I to attend to these matters. For what it's worth I now see that the StatsSA pdf file (p030112007.pdf) - which I thought I was so clever to even find - has already beed cited in the article! I look forward to seeing what Underlying comes up with, and how he/she presents it.Barrydowns (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there are two possible values for the population of Kimberley from the 2001 Census. The first is that of what the census describes as the Kimberley "main place", 62,526 people. But the census often separates - somewhat arbitrarily - townships from "city proper"; for a genuine idea of the population of Kimberley, it makes more sense to include Galeshewe, population 103,719, and Roodepan, population 18,962, giving a total population of 185,207. - htonl (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now updated the infobox population stats to reflect those figures. - htonl (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Htonl, sorry I forgot to include you in the request for help, I should have remembered that you are also a stats and demographics wizard in Wikiproject South Africa. Roger (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Htonl on this one, it makes sense to include the neighbouring townships in the demographic figures, especially if they don't have an article of their own.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed this discussion without commenting so far. There was a time (under Apartheid) when Galeshewe was said to be a "city" on its own with its own mayor even. But this was clearly artificial and those of us living in Kimberley would regard both Galeshewe and Roodepan as being just two of many suburbs that make up the city. As for actual numbers I would say that 185 000 or so would be a major underestimate and that Barrydowns' 243,018 is much closer to the mark. Unreferenced estimates in the body of the article indicate (in the section headed "Post Apartheid"): "In 1998 the Kimberley Comprehensive Urban Plan estimated that Kimberley had 210,800 people representing 46,207 households living in the city. By 2008 estimates were in the region of 250,000 inhabitants."Blarcrean (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best (authorotative) source we have for population stats are the 2001 census and 2007 survey. Unfortunately they do not use consistently defined areas - the 2007 stats refer to Sol Plaatjie Local Municipality which, as previously mentioned, includes a few small towns that are in no way definable as part of the city. Roger (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the figures in the "Comprehensive Urban Plan" probably refer to the whole municipality. - htonl (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

poznanski

[edit]

has anyone heard of two brothers from Poland in connection with the early days of the mine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.233.203 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Columns

[edit]

I've just changed most of the "lists" (suburbs, schools etc) to 3 columns, and reduced their font sizes. I did this simply to make the otherwise longish lists a little more compact. And whilst I was at it, I also alphabetised them.

I see now that although the "columnisation" works nicely in Firefox 10 and Chrome 17, good ol' Internet Explorer 8 ignores it. But I live in hopes that one day Microsoft will join the "in-crowd" and make their browsers more HTML compliant (assuming that this is in fact an HTML function)! I will go to another computer later and see what IE9 makes of it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrydowns (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IE9 doesn't grok columns either. I have rearranged the Education section to "lift" the paragraph about the new university out of the lists of schools and colleges.
This was a useful rearrangement (and your elevation of Education as a whole in the article). Thanks.Blarcrean (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've believed for a long time that education is actually a fairly major "industry" in Kimberley. The number of boarding schools is significantly higher than many SA cities of a similar size. This is due to the essentially rural nature of the NC. Many scholars from small towns and rural areas of the province attend the larger high schools in Kimberley rather than the small under-resourced schools in their home towns. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting observation. Blarcrean (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need references - especially history

[edit]

Does anyone have references for the History part? It looks useful and well written but with no references it can't be used & verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavvyVee (talk • contribs) 12:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kimberley, Northern Cape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kimberley, Northern Cape. 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.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kimberley, Northern Cape. 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.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kimberley, Northern Cape. 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.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History?

[edit]

Did nothing exist here before the big hole?

population

[edit]

The population of Kimberley is certainly NOT 1 295 000. 41.23.4.24 (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly in Afrikaans

[edit]

Tipe nedersetting 197.90.166.6 (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimberley,_Northern_Cape&oldid=1212077082"