Jump to content

Talk:Qonce

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:King William's Town)

It is incorrect to say that King William's Town is in the "Cape Province" As of 1994, the Cape of Good Hope Province no longer exists, having been broken into Western Cape Province, Northern Cape Province, and Eastern Cape Province. King William's Town is located in the latter.


Kaffir wars? HIGHLY offensive wording. Please change! Even when I was at school (24 years ago) this term had long been abandoned in favour of Frontier Wars. 41.208.24.234 08:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King William's Town. 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) 20:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 November 2021

[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 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: Moved. While there are decent arguments presented regarding which name appears to be the more common name, the arguments that rest on WP:NAMECHANGES' stipulation of "we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ('reliable sources') written after the name change" hold the strongest here. The attempts to look at raw numbers from G searches (excluding/including/etc) are very faulty here (as was mentioned), considering the current preponderance of sources that are stating Qonce and then also mentioning King William's Town (as the "former name"). So, given the sources presented, and the extra weighting we are to give to sources after an official name change, the rough consensus backs moving this article. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King William's Town → Qonce – It has been almost one year since South Africa renamed King William's Town to Qonce. Despite the fact that this name is in use by both media and local government, Wikipedia has not updated the listing. South African towns and cities have been renamed in the past and the Wikipedia article has changed without issue.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2021-05-17-demolition-of-victoria-grounds-in-qonce-another-assault-on-the-eastern-capes-rich-history/

https://www.airbnb.com/qonce-south-africa/stays

https://www.artefacts.co.za/main/Buildings/towndetframes.php?townid=49

https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/mans-death-sparks-fears-of-werewolf-stalking-eastern-cape-village-20211112

https://www.dispatchlive.co.za/news/2021-11-26-bail-bid-postponed-for-qonce-church-leader-accused-of-sexual-assault-human-trafficking/

https://www.goexpress.co.za/2021/11/26/blood-drive-to-help-two-youths/

https://www.foodformzansi.co.za/eastern-cape-horse-owners-in-dire-straits/

https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/naked-body-of-woman-found-outside-qonce-with-bruises-and-stab-wounds/

https://www.heraldlive.co.za/news/2021-09-29-qonce-bank-evacuated-after-bomb-scare/

I have included a ton of sources to show that this name is in use throughout South African media. Saying "African media isn't trustworthy" is a bad argument. There is a wholehearted denial in response to these name changes by a certain section of the population. I'm writing this to defend against many bad faith arguments that are often raised to discredit these name changes. This article highlights why some people are angered by these name changes and why many of these names are rooted in colonialism and racism. This process is very similar to denazification or decommunization.

https://mg.co.za/article/2018-09-21-00-change-the-names-to-rid-sa-of-its-colonial-apartheid-past/

Some South African cities and towns were renamed decades ago and still have the old names in article titles. It's time for Wikipedia to catch up to modern day South Africa and the people that live in the country. Apartheid ended in 1994 and the people of the country want names that reflect local languages or simply the names that were always used rather than embrace the names imposed by the apartheid regime. Desertambition (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. -- Aervanath (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as WP:TOOSOON. "King William's Town" continues to see significant use, and it does not appear that "Qonce" has become the common name yet (For example: 123456). Concerns about the reliability of South African media should not be relevant here, as the town recieves minimal coverage in non-South African media. I also note that much of the proposers arguments amount to WP:RGW, which while a noble endeavour is not one suitable for Wikipedia. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quite telling that none of the articles you linked actually used King George's Town in the title of the article. Articles that focus on it have Qonce in the title. It seems pointless to oppose this move when it is already in use and people are trying to adopt the name. Other South African cities have been renamed and moved without issue. This was a democratic decision. I do not believe I am engaging in WP:RGW, I am just trying to update the wikipedia to match current facts. It is what it is. Desertambition (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You would make your case much stronger, and your statement that you are not attempting to WP:RGW more believable, if you stuck to usage and calmly dismantled the opposing arguments. This rhetoric may work well elsewhere but it's counter-productive here. The case is convincing enough on its own, and many of the opposing arguments weak, but every time you do so you distract from the argument and make the change less likely to happen. Greenman (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made a factual statement. The articles I linked have Qonce in the title, the articles BilledMammal linked do not use Qonce in the title. It is highly relevant to the discussion. I have calmly dismantled these arguments already. This has been discussed extensively. Editors should not dismiss evidence just because they disagree with the "rhetoric" of an editor. I encourage any editors that may be upset with my rhetoric to read through the sources I have provided as well as my extensive reasoning and draw their own conclusions. Desertambition (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanding on this, "King William's Town" is used significantly more often in recent Google Scholar results; 158 results for King William's Town compared to 10 results for Qonce. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yet to enter common usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment relisting per request on my talk page today. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BilledMammal, if both names are about equally common, but one of them is WP:OFFICIALNAME, then shouldn't we use the official name? Is there some policy that prefers the old name when the new name is about as common as the old one?VR talk 00:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, there is no explicit policy in either direction. However, it is policy that Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead, and so in cases where it is unclear that the new name has become the common name (and to be clear, I don't believe it has become the common or even equally common name yet - to add to my previous !vote, see Britannica which continues to use King William's Town) I feel it is safer to delay the change until it is clear that the new name has become the common name, in order to prevent us from accidentally leading the change, rather than following it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If old and new name are about as equal, then is not reasonable to say we are "leading" the change. In such a case, we are neither "following" the change, but rather keeping up closely with RS. And once a name becomes official, that name's usage is likely to only increase (I can't think of any examples where the usage of a name decreased after it became official). So if the old and new name are about as equal, we should favor the newer WP:OFFICIALNAME.VR talk 01:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The way I see it in such cases is that there is no harm in waiting (WP:NODEADLINE) and possibly harm in acting, as if we misjudge the level of support - as we easily might, in marginal cases - we could inadvertently lead, rather than follow. I also think such examples are relatively common; not every name change is lead by the government - an example of this would be the decline of the use of Ayers Rock prior to the 1993 renaming (though King William's Town is not an example of this; ngrams shows almost no use prior to the official renaming) BilledMammal (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That ngrams link looks like the same one Rreagan007 used below, and it gives me a little red circle with an exclamation mark (!) and tells me "Ngrams not found...". Did I break it? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ngrams appears to have an issue with links involving special characters such as ' that I was not aware of; I can't work out a way to fix it, so if you are interested in seeing the results, just enter "King William's Town,Qonce" in the search bar there. BilledMammal (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • And in your estimation, how applicable are ngram results that only go up to 2019 to a name change that occurred after 2019? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Quite applicable to my discussion with VR. Less applicable generally, but I would expect that if Qonce was going to become the common name shortly after the official name change it would see some use prior, particularly since renaming has been under discussion since 2007. Note that "Replaced King William's Town with King William 's Town to match how we processed the books." is not an issue; it is just how Ngrams processes apostrophes, as word separators rather than part of the word, and will not have any impact on these results (although note that it does not include common misspellings of King William's Town. BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is incorrect to state that both names are used equally. It is common knowledge that basically the only people opposing these name changes are white Afrikaners. That is mentioned in almost every article about the name changes. It has been reported in international as well as South African media. Desertambition (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might have been mistaken; WP:MPN seems to require that the new name become "predominant" in "common global usage" before we move the article. BilledMammal (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The old name is still the most common name used in English. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did not provide reasoning, sources, or anything substantial. Please expand on your reasoning. Desertambition (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Here you go. The Google Ngrams clearly show the current title is the most common name in English. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Am I doing something wrong? That ngrams link gives me a little red circle with an exclamation mark (!) and tells me "Ngrams not found...". Did I break it? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 09:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Google Ngrams shows the frequency of terms in printed sources up until 2019. Besides the broken link, its relevance in the discussion is limited. Greenman (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, and when you get it to work, by placing the cursor in the search box and pressing ENTER, a gnarly note pops up... "Replaced King William's Town with King William 's Town to match how we processed the books." That plus the fact that the name change is about a year old and ngrams only go up to 2019 seems a bit squirrelly. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The thing about name changes goes like this: "Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ('reliable sources') written after the name change. 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. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in 'Use commonly recognizable names'." Judging by sources the Wikipedia community's policy consensus to change this title should have already taken effect, and any local consensus in opposition should receive little weight in comparison to article titling policy.
    Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
There are many, many books, news articles and scholarly sources that use the new name "Qonce", either exclusively or with the old name in parentheses after the new name. So there is no question that Wikipedia should follow suit. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qonce in Google maps – KFC-King Williams Town-Corner of Cathcart & Mary Streets, Qonce, 5601, South Africa – and on and on. Some places in the city retain the old name; however, the city is named "Qonce".
Here is a news article from February which gives correct pronunciations of all the new names. "Qonce" sounds like "kone", as in "ice cream kone". P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 10:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles that used both names used the Qonce (formerly King William's Town) formula (or similar), but there are a few examples of both names co-existing in a different way in the same article:
  • King William’s Town's second annual Qonce Home Coming entertainment event was allocated R400000.[1]
  • “Hopefully the Premier’s office will now respond to us,” said Ziya Gaxa from Qonce High School in King William's Town.[2]
-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting further that the {{Find sources|Qonce}} links given above clearly show the predominance of the new name over the old one. What then should happen when local opposition to a page move is faced with community support through policies and guidelines? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 00:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at those links, we find 158 results on Google Scholar for King William's Town since 2021, and 10 results for Qonce. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might deserve a closer look? Did you filter for "we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ('reliable sources') written after the name change" from the Wikipedia:Article titles#Name changes policy? No, I don't think you did. "Qonce" now gets a lot more weight in those reliable scholarly sources, and in the book and news sources as well. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 15:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I limited my search to Google Scholar results from 2021 onwards - so yes, I did. As for the books, there are no results. BilledMammal (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That filter does not work as expected, for example the SFD report which was updated last year but originated in 2018, and it was only the 4th one down on the list. Google cannot always be useful when it comes to complexities like original dates vs. updates. And too, there is the challenge of discerning whether "King William's Town" refers to the city or to an establishment within the city of Qonce that still bears the old name. There can easily be a King William's Town KFC, a King William's Town Nature Reserve, etc., but they are now all located in the city of Qonce. Google can't tell the diff between the KFC and the city when only "King William's Town" is the search term. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 21:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Should also note that the Wikipedia books link goes back before the name change to show that some writers were already calling the South African cities by their new names even before they were "official". P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 22:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing manually, I find that 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25 use "King William's Town" after the change, in reference to the town, and not in reference to historical events. As we are only part of the way through the "King William's Town" results, and we have already found more uses than the maximum number of Qonce uses, it is clear that King William's Town gets a lot more weight in those reliable scholarly sources.
Regarding books, if we consider usage of Qonce prior to the change, we need to consider usage of King William's Town prior to the change. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of that section makes clear that older names should also be used only if they are more substantially more common. It would defy both common sense and Wikipedia standards to argue that in a split, we should by default go against the official one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - reminiscent of how long it took Wikipedia to change Burma to Myanmar. Per PE, the usage has shifted enough that we should go with the official name. I still call it the Sears Tower every time I see it, but we dont. nableezy - 01:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's unfortunately common in RM discussions to see arguments like "X is clearly the common name. Look at all of these sources that use X: ...". That might be sufficient to show that X is in wide use, but what matters for WP:COMMONNAME purposes is the overall ratio of X to Y across all RS. Only a few participants here (Toddy1, BilledMammal) have made an effort to ascertain that ratio. Of those, I find the analysis of Google Scholar results since 2021 done by BilledMammal in the threaded discussion above to make a very compelling case that "King William's Town" is still the commonname. Colin M (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, Colin M, the problem with those Google scholar results is that Google does not differentiate the "King William's Town" results between the name of the city and the name of several places within Qonce that are still called the King William's Town something or other, such as the "King William's Town Nature Reserve". There is a similar problem with the Google news results, and yet the number of results for "Qonce" as the city name exceeds those for "King William's Town". Just fyi. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked into that after you mentioned it and discovered that while not all results were relevant, enough are to make it clear that King William's Town gets a lot more weight in those reliable scholarly sources - see above for details. BilledMammal (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Paine Ellsworth: I'm satisfied that these concerns were addressed by BilledMammal's manual inspection of a subset of the Google Scholar results. But if you think there's a methodological problem with their approach, I'd be interested to hear. Colin M (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, their statements make it clear that their methodology is arbitrary and subjective. When they say things like "...while not all results were relevant, enough are to make it clear..." makes me ask how much is enough in their mind. Our counts obviously differ, but frankly, even though my counts yielded "enough" to give the COMMONNAME crown to Qonce, I cannot say for sure whose methodology is better, BilledMammal's or mine. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Local usage has changed, and that should predominate over "Google scholar" results, which do not reflect common usage, particularly on the ground.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Recent usage points to Qonce as being the common name. 19 results for King William's Town in the past month (most referring to historical usage) 24 for Qonce. Greenman (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Updated article's wording for consistency

[edit]

Article wording has been updated to be consistent with current name. See Utqiagvik, Alaska and Denali National Park and Preserve for similarly updated articles. Desertambition (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"also known as"

[edit]

@Desertambition: The only question is whether the town is currently referred to as "King William's Town", and it is - this article, referring to it as "King William's Town", was published today. As such, it is inaccurate to use "formerly". BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old names continue to be used sporadically for years after a name change. There are many examples of this for basically any renamed place in the world. However, for the sake of clarity, it makes sense to use the word 'formerly'. I am not saying we should remove the former name from the lead but it effectively communicates that the place was renamed and that the former name is no longer the official name. Much like how articles say "officially known as (blank)" rather than "also known as (blank)". The prominent placement in the lead sentence is clear enough in my opinion. What do you think? Desertambition (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with "formerly" is that it implies it is not used, which is incorrect; the article itself explains that King William's Town is no longer the official name.
I also think that we should revert to using King William's Town when referring to the pre-renaming town, as the move request only establishes the common name for events after the name change, and the common name for events before the change continues to be King William's Town. BilledMammal (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what "formerly" implies and the article does not say that the former name is never used. It does not make sense to have inconsistent use of the name throughout the article, as the article already makes clear when the former name was in use and when it was not. I explained this in the post above. You have also changed this article while active discussion of this issue is happening on the Makhanda, South Africa talk page. Presumably because I brought it up as an example. Desertambition (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Formerly: "at an earlier time : PREVIOUSLY". And MOS:PLACE says that when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context it should be used. In this case, for example, the widely accepted historical name for the declaration of King William's Town as the provincial capital in the 1830's is King William's Town, not Qonce. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues:

  1. Should it be (a) (a) Qonce, also known as King William's Town or (b) Qonce (formerly King William's Town)
  2. Should it be (a) King William's Town was founded by... or (b) Qonce was settled by Sir Benjamin d’Urban as King William's Town

Issue 1, depends on whether King William's Town is still widely used as a name for the place. Talk:Qonce#Requested move 27 November 2021 established that it still is.

Issue 2, depends on Wikipedia practice. In other articles, old names are used in a historical context, see for example: Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9#RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment about 'formerly' vs. 'also' & use of Qonce vs King William's Town within article

[edit]

Two issues here.

First issue:

Should the first sentence say:

A: Qonce, also known as King William's Town...

B: Qonce, formerly King William's Town...

Second issue:

How should "King William's Town" be used in the article?

A: King William's Town should be used throughout the article when talking about a time before 2020: ie. King William's Town was founded by...

B: Qonce should be used throughout the article while identifying when it was named King William's Town: ie. Qonce was settled by Sir Benjamin d’Urban as King William's Town

Desertambition (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've closed this to give us a chance to do WP:RFCBEFORE and ensure that the RFC is neutral. One of the options does not reflect the position expressed; the second issue, option A. I would instead propose the wording: "King William's Town should be used whenever it is the widely accepted historical English name for the relevant time period." I think the wording of the rest is appropriate, but it would be appropriate to give Toddy1 a chance to comment on the wording before opening the proposal.
I would suggest using this section for the RFC Before, and then we can open a new one for the actual RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine to close it. Some of the wording could be improved. The proposed wording for the "founding" of the city should also be changed because Sir Benjamin d’Urban was not the first person to settle Qonce. It was first used by Khoikhoi for grazing and then settled by Xhosa people in the mid-to-late 17th century.
Perhaps "Qonce was officially made a settlement and the capital of Queen Adelaide's Province by Sir Benjamin d’Urban as King William's Town". What do you think? Desertambition (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be a third issue. In this case, "settled" appears to match the definition, even if the Xhosa had previously established settlements, and in this case it appears that they had not. BilledMammal (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More images

[edit]

I'm a dedicated photographer and i was wondering can Wikipedia facilitate transactions for images? CJ ROKA (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qonce&oldid=1202803527"