Talk:Port Elizabeth

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

Delagoa[edit]

Reference [29] of this article is incorrect. Delagoa does not mean "from Goa". Delagoa originates from Baía de Lagoa in Portuguese. Lagoon Bay in English.

Audio recording of Gqeberha[edit]

We have the IPA pronunciation, but it would be great if we could add an audio recording as well, preferably voiced by a native Xhosa speaker.Park3r (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in English[edit]

In reply to the comment above asking for an audio recording .... I would like to see this, yes. Also I want to know, does this name have a different pronunciation for when it's used in English? For example, the Alaskan town name Utqiagvik has both a native pronunciation and an adapted English pronunciation. Likewise for many Spanish-origin placenames in the American Southwest, such as Las Vegas, Los Angeles, etc .... names we Americans might never think twice about. —Soap— 20:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like some Xhosa-speakers struggle with the pronunciation, or at least the spelling [1]. It's unlikely that an adapted standardised English pronunciation will emerge. South Africa is too riven by divisions (class, race, language, others) anyway, so at best you'd probably end up with two or three non-Xhosa pronunciations depending on the background of the speaker, and any of those would be used in English. (It is possible, if unlikely, that South African English speakers will be able to correctly handle the click sound the same way they can handle guttural sounds: I think I can approximate the sound in the NPR recording- despite only having a single click word: tsk in my vocabulary- possibly because of exposure to click sounds on TV when I was younger). This is why an audio recording would be really useful in the article. Park3r (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am Xhosa. How can I contribute? How do I upload? 41.114.178.27 (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I upload? 41.114.178.27 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Register an account and use commons:Special:UploadWizard. The format must be Ogg, FLAC, WAV, or MP3. Nardog (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gqeberha/Port Elizabeth[edit]

Now that the objections to the name change have been rejected by government, and, more importantly from Wikipedia's perspective, with South African media extensively using the new name these days, is it time to change the name of the article per WP:NAMECHANGES? Greenman (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s still probably too soon. Also due weight needs to be given to the (lack of) general credibility of the South African media, which has developed major issues with even simple fact checking and reporting[2][3] .Park3r (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these links seem to be about reporting by one (1) outlet, the Pretoria News. Surely you're aware that a city generally has more than one newspaper, let alone an entire country. The New York Times running a bullshit article would not discredit New York City, and it certainly would not discredit all media in the United States! jp×g 03:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Greenman, I am surprise that the article still defaults to Port Elizabeth despite its officially recognised, legally entrenched and widely used new name Gqeberha. The article's name should be changed to reflect this reality.--Discott (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent move proposal (see below, there've been three) did not succeed, but there'll be another one soon enough as the move is probably inevitable, it's just a matter of time. I'd suggest waiting till next year to avoid topic fatigue! Greenman (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 September 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: Not considered - please re-request with an actual rationale, @Desertambition: (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Port Elizabeth → Gqeberha – Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically. Desertambition (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2021 (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.

Requested move 20 September 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: Closing early per WP:SNOW. Keeping this open for any longer will only make the move further away from happening. A new RM paying regard to policy, particularly WP:NAMECHANGES, would be welcome. Nardog (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Port Elizabeth → Gqeberha – This article should have been moved months ago. Proof has already been posted on this page. However, South African news sources are not accepted for being "unreliable". This is transparently an effort by white South Africans to prolong the name "Port Elizabeth" in place of "Gqeberha" against the wishes of most South Africans. This goes against the fundamental ideas of Wikipedia. Articles should not pander to a specific ethnic group but rather reflect the common name. Three points from "Reasons for moving a page" apply here:

1. The title does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, such as that it is not the common name of the subject or it is overprecise.

2. The subject of the article has changed its name and the new name has come into majority use.

3. The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate.

There are no more arguments to be made besides looking at the proof that has already been provided. It must also be noted that many non-white South Africans do not have internet access and are thus unlikely to appear on the wikipedia talk page in great numbers. The legacy of apartheid still looms over South Africa in many ways, this is one of them. Desertambition (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: You have made no effort to prove that Gqeberha is the common name. All you're doing is playing the race/apartheid card. O.N.R. (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Speedy close No substantive evidence provided. Park3r (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Speedy close "Port Elizabeth" is vastly more common than "Gqeberha" in searches,"Port Elizabeth","Gqeberha" this shows that reasons (1) and (2) are not reasons for a move. Reason 3 is not applicable either, since the current article name is correctly spelled/capitalised/punctuated, etc.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Oppose as other commenters have noted, the nominator has not even made a minimal effort to demonstrate what the common name is. No prejudice against this proposal if a rationale is given. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the nominator has failed to provide rational supporting the move (The official name, per WP:OFFICIALNAME, is a candidate for the articles title, but it is not automatically assumed to be the correct title - in relation to #2, this means that Gqeberha is a valid candidate, but you still need to demonstrate that it has come into common use. Further, I would ask the nominator to be mindful of WP:CIVIL; while I am ignorant of the broader discussions on this page and elsewhere, the insinuations you have made in this proposal about the motives of some editors is problematic at best. BilledMammal (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is still the clear WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reasons provided are insufficient. Fbergo (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2021 (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.

Requested move 30 September 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 section.

Port Elizabeth → ? – Port Elizabeth was renamed to Gqberha. This is the name used by government services and local media.

https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/sport/soccer/2021-09-12-royal-am-finally-win-their-first-match-in-the-premiership-hand-chippa-maiden-defeat/

https://www.news24.com/wheels/motorsport/gtc-heads-to-gqberha-with-title-battles-wide-open-20210525

https://www.enca.com/news/gqeberha-fire-businesses-and-vehicles-gutted

https://www.dispatchlive.co.za/sport/2021-05-02-going-the-distance-sa-half-marathon-championship-in-gqeberha-reminds-us-of-former-glory-days/

https://mype.co.za/new/gqberha-in-the-news-22-may-2021/146973/2021/05/

African news articles were considered "unreliable" before. I think this is incorrect and these sources should be taken seriously. There is no reason African media would be inherently unreliable.

Apologies for misspelling Gqeberha, Xhosa is not my first language.

Desertambition (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. First, while I feel that this doesn't improve considerably on the second proposal, in particular in the area requested in closing (A new RM paying regard to policy, particularly WP:NAMECHANGES, would be welcome), as this is now the third proposal on this topic I believe we should settle the question, at least for the moment.
Second, I want to comment that I support the use of the sources provided by Desertambition; while WP:COMMONNAME does require independent, reliable English-language sources, I believe that when considering between two names without NPOV considerations even unreliable sources can give evidence that a term is in common use - though please note that I have not assessed any of these sources for reliability, and so am not making any claim in regards to their reliability or lack thereof.
Third, even considering those sources, I believe the WP:COMMONNAME continues to Port Elizabeth. Ngrams is not particularly useful here, as it currently goes up to 2019 and the name change discussion was started in 2019, so I will directly consider news sources. "Gqberha" gives 81 news results, while "Port Elizabeth" tells us "many" (so many that the number is inaccurate and shouldn't be directly considered) and while not all of these refer to the location, enough do that I believe "Port Elizabeth" continues to be the common name.
I could be wrong, and I would welcome evidence being provided in support of the name change, and I will also note that I believe the common name will eventually become "Gqberha", and at that point I will be only too happy to support the move. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the third proposal, but both the others were flawed. The first provided no rationale, while the second does likewise, as well as derailing itself talking about ethnic groups. Since the name has changed officially, and usage is increasing (it's getting rare to even see "previously called Port Elizabeth" anymore), the name change is seemingly inevitable, and the proposal will probably keep being made until it goes through. Greenman (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes the case a little more opaque, but looking at the results generated, I continue to believe that Port Elizabeth continues to remain the most common term used internationally, particularly but not solely in sports-related news: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources listed in the reply immediately above appear to lean towards Gqeberha. News24, which is South Africa's most widely read media source, has switched almost exclusively to Gqeberha. One of the two sources provided is sponsored content, and the other appears to be an anomaly. See [12] for the Port Elizabeth tag, which as far as I could see returns no articles with Port Elizabeth in the title, but numerous with Gqeberha. Timeslive appears to be inconsistent, but appears to lean towards Gqeberha. I can't link to the results directly, but from the main page, a search for Gqeberha returns results with the term in the headline/summary, while a search for Port Elizabeth only appears to return results with that name in the body. Capetownetc is not a particularly influential or widely read site. I can only find a single recent article in the Scottish Herald referring to either, and only two each from Ugandan Daily Monitor and Zambian football, so not enough to establish a usage there, while I would say the New York Times, Washington Post sources below do more to establish WP:COMMONNAME. Greenman (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cherrypicking is not helpful in establishing COMMONNAME. You listed one source to base your claim of "worldwide" usage, and one to establish "Southern African" usage. But here's an article from the same source using Gqeberha (full quote for those not wanting to register is "The park in Gqeberha, 460 miles (740km) east of Cape Town". Here's an example from eSwatini. Here's a Zambian football example. Greenman (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. South African media has reliability issues in general, and are capricious when it comes to name changes, using one name for a while, then another, depending on the way the political winds are blowing. Wikipedia should not be used to establish facts on the ground, and changing the name too quickly here will result in WP:CIRCULAR references.Park3r (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME in Britain. Google News search results for Britain for the past year are: Port Elizabeth 218 results, Gqeberha 13 results (both searches exclude the other name). There is no point in Wikipedia using a name so unfamiliar to readers that even the proposer has difficulty spelling it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ... someone remind me exactly why usage in Britain determines what we call a South African city Red Slash 21:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Peter Ormond 💬 07:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per proposal and WP:TIES Red Slash 21:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. I wanted to close it, but I decided that the result wasn't clear, so maybe I could throw my two cents.
Let's weed out some arguments that are inapplicable here. For example, WP:TIES says that when writing the article, the form of English used should reflect the subject described, i.e. in this case, South African English. That has no bearing on whether the article should change the name, but obviously it should be written in that form of English.
Now, as to the WP:COMMONNAME argument. Here are the searches limited to the last 8 months (the name change occurred in Feb 2021): Gqeberha Port Elizabeth
However, unlike my colleagues, I don't want to concentrate on numbers only, but on the frequency of publication and the countries of publication
From my analysis, South African media have not switched to Gqeberha exclusively. The first articles from non-RSA media outlets mentioning the new name were the NYT and Le Journal du Québec (Canada), which appeared on page... 12 and 14 in Google News search (btw, most of the usages of Gqeberha in international media mentioned above concerned a story about vaccine plants, which, while being important is a rather narrow topic). Both were talking about a planned Moderna COVID-19 facility in RSA and did not say "former Port Elizabeth". The coverage from outside South Africa still predominantly uses Port Elizabeth, and South African media outlets also use Port Elisabeth quite often; so often, in fact, that I could not really say if any of the versions appears more often.
I'll also add that Google Maps uses the names unevenly. The Polish, German and the Dutch version show Port Elizabeth, the UK and US versions show Gqeberha, while the Ukrainian version uses Gqeberha and a transliteration for Port Elizabeth (WTF?).
Now to the actual usage. Apparently Port Elizabeth/Gqeberha and quite a lot of people objected to what seems to be an imposed rather than agreed upon name change, claiming it not to be representative; and indeed residents don't seem enthusiastic about the name. Moreover, there are some mildly interesting reports about a Gqeberha man being convicted by a Port Elizabeth court (in fairness, it's the same in Ukraine and Russia: Kropyvnytskyi is the capital of Kirovohrad Oblast, while Yekaterinburg is the main city of Sverdlovsk Oblast). Finally, Google Trends show absolute dominance of Port Elizabeth over Gqeberha worldwide. Even if we sieve out the usages of Port Elizabeth in context of the port on the Hudson River in New Jersey and stick to South Africa only, the picture doesn't change at all, and in all provinces of South Africa, Gqeberha is used at most in 7% of cases (Mpumalanga). In Eastern Cape, that's a mere 3%, while in Port Elizabeth proper, this falls to a marginal 2%. I don't know if this is because Gqeberha is too exotic for most people or because people tend to stick to what they are used to call something, but the evidence is that the official name is not popular among the readers (even if the press uses it quite often). (Btw, Wikipedia stats confirm this disparity
Just to illustrate that even official designations do not override the article's name, the Czech Republic recommends Czechia as its official name, and it is even used by international institutions, but folks stick with the longer name. And so do we. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, yes, WP:TIES is highly relevant. We go by what reliable South African English-language sources call it, because if they opt for Gqeberha, then that IS the name for it in their variety of English, and we're suppoesd to use the name in their variety. If this were a city in, IDK, Algeria, we probably wouldn't, but for South Africa we do. Red Slash 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I beg to differ. English Wikipedia is not only for South African usage, but for the usage of all people capable of understanding English (or using Google Translate), but at the same time English Wikipedia accomodates for different accents, spellings and terms if appropriate. Using South African spelling is appropriate; using a term which is not popular among South Africans themselves (let alone other people) is not.
Comment Given that the new name will be almost impossible to pronounce for non-Xhosa speakers, even in South Africa (with its combination of clicks and guttural sounds), and certainly for international broadcast media, It's highly unlikely that it will become the accepted English name of the place. I would strongly advise you to actually listen to the pronunciation if you haven't already. One suspects that, after the novelty wears off, the only reason it will be used in the South African English media will be as a racial cudgel to belittle English speaking ethnic groups for not being able to pronounce "African" names, so WP:TIES does not apply. Park3r (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's remember that we aren't creating the encyclopedia for the media, we are creating it for the people who expect us to cover information in the terms accessible to them. Evidence that the media use the official version is mixed at best, while the folks themselves seem to almost never use the name of the city. I'd have stopped here because it's common-sense to cover all ideas in the language most accessible to the people, which should be the paramount principle for us, but since invoking common sense might backfire sometimes, there's one more thing I'll add to be sure.
WP:TIES is from the Manual of Style (or a style guide) under the section "National varieties of English" while WP:COMMONNAME is part of Wikipedia policy called "Article titles", itself part of the Manual of Style. However, rather than linking to a general provision (which WP:TIES is, itself being part of guidelines, which are slightly below policies in the hierarchy), we should probably look at the specific paragraph which refers to language differences in titles, i.e. WP:TITLEVAR, which is also part of "Article titles". The problem is, it only deals with spelling differences, and mentions that very rarely, a non-nation-specific term might be used. Moreover, an explanatory supplement about official names stresses that "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." (note the absence of nation-specific adjective). The proposed change makes the name even less ambiguous, but is not consistent with usage in English-language RS as the evidence for prevalence of the new name is mixed at best, and it certainly makes it not recognizable for outside readers. Since the change will, in balance, make the article worse, my vote does not change.
From my experience: the name of Ukrainian currency in Russian is generally "гривна" (grivna) and is commonly used in Ukraine and Russia alike, but according to Ukrainian authorities, "гривня" (grivnia) is the proper name, which they insist is because they have to differentiate the 11th-century currency from the one used today (though it has probably more to do with being closer in pronounciation to Ukrainian than that history no one actually cares about). And Ukrainian media sometimes follow that official interpretation and write гривня, with appropriate declension and all that. But the article in Russian uses the more common version. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Szmenderowiecki, I don't understand the Google Trends links you post. If I follow them, I get a graph showing "Gqeberha City in South Africa" and "Gqeberha search term" and a disclaimer that says "This comparison contains both Search terms and Topics, which are measured differently." And even if this was a comparison with Port Elizabeth as a search term, it's not a direct comparison since there are numerous entities with Port Elizabeth as part of their name.
Since the article name in Wikipedia is currently named Port Elizabeth, and links from other pages points to it, it makes sense that the page views would be far higher. The comparison is between those directly type in Gqeberha as a search term on Wikipedia itself, and every other person visiting the page through a search engine, following a link on Wikipedia, etc. Would you agree the Wikipedia stats are not relevant?
When I do a Google search over the last one month (8 months ago the change had not occured yet, and uptake was not immediate, so one month is more meaningful), and order by date, I get far more results for Gqeberha. Compare [24] and [25]. At this point in time, I get 15 results for Gqeberha in the last day. For Port Elizabeth, I get 6. Of those 6, only 1 makes sole use of the old name for the city. 1 is for a port in the US, 2 mention Gqeberha/Port Elizabeth, 1 is for the name of an entity (the Port Elizabeth Magistrates Court) while describing the city as Gqeberha, and the other is historical usage (referring to an event in the past when the city still had its old name). This seems overwhelmingly skewed towards Gqeberha, so I'm not seeing the same results as you. Greenman (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Szmenderowiecki, you are wrong about the Czech Republic. Czechia is the approved "short form" name for the Czech Republic, not a new name entirely. Desertambition (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the Czech government wanted that change and there was a lot of pressure to switch to the short name, and yet ultimately nobody cared much and kept going the old way. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The users opposing the move are so clearly biased it's almost unbelievable. Tons of articles on renamed South African cities have been flooded with disinformation from white South Africans who are upset at decolonization and tackling the legacy of apartheid. I have never seen such weak sources accepted for articles except for articles related to South Africa. There is a clear effort to ignore reality in favor of maintaining rosy apartheid-era viewpoints. We need some admins/experienced users to step in and clean up South African articles. This discussion should not be as contentious as it is. The proof provided is more than convincing. South Africa is a multiracial democracy now and they have democratically decided to change the name of the city. This name is now in use by local people, local media, and global media. There are some South African cities on Wikipedia that still have not been moved despite being renamed for over a decade. While we should always assume good faith, there is a point where we can't ignore the obvious reality. Also it should be noted that certain individuals keep saying that "South African media is unreliable." This is vague, misleading, and incorrect. We also should not ignore the racial connotations that come with statements like that, especially given the history of Apartheid. Desertambition (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apartheid ended 30 years ago. None of this nonsense is relevant any more. What matters is the common name in English. It is implausible to say that the British news media call it Port Elizabeth because of apartheid (which was never practiced in Britain). A more plausible explanation is that they call it Port Elizabeth, because that is the commonly understood name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This response illustrates my point exactly. A complete dismissal of apartheid is what's going on here. Apartheid only ended 30 years ago. That's not long at all. Segregation in America was outlawed decades ago and yet the effects still linger and impact people to this day. Wikipedia should not be a platform for white South Africans to create their own reality. Apartheid absolutely has to do with why it was called Port Elizabeth originally and why it is not anymore. There is a concerted effort to scrub or downplay the effects of apartheid on wikipedia and this article is just one example of that. At this point, Gqeberha is a well known name even among English-speaking South Africans. Perhaps even especially among English-speaking South Africans given the outrage over the name change. Desertambition (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been born after apartheid ended. Secondly, I'm writing from an entirely impartial perspective because I have no ties to South Africa whatsoever, other than I can speak English with South Africans (do you see a lot of South Africans with knowledge of Polish, Ukrainian and Russian AND no knowledge of South African languages other than English?). Please stop this personal attack bullshit. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to say everyone who opposes this move is a white South African. I'm saying that there is a concerted effort in South Africa by white South Africans to keep these names alive despite decolonization efforts. These efforts influence us all. The name change is a big matter of controversy among white English/Afrikaans speaking South Africans but is much less controversial to black English/Xhosa speaking South Africans. We are prioritizing the opinions of Afrikaners. We should also keep in mind the discrepancy in internet access which allow a minority in South Africa to project themselves on the internet disproportionally. Virtually all articles being written recently are using Gqeberha and even users on this page who oppose the name change tend to agree Gqeberha is going to be in vogue sooner or later. Desertambition (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
even users on this page who oppose the name change tend to agree Gqeberha is going to be in vogue sooner or later which indirectly means that it's not now. When it is going to be there, or if we have overwhelming evidence of its common usage in South African as well as other media outlets, I'll be more than happy to change my mind; my findings are such as presented, and I don't believe that "overwhelming" challenge is met here. I'm not getting into South African politics and race relations, because it's not a forum. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Desertambition, clearly the evidence is not convincing enough if there is a debate. Since you've probably helped sink the proposal by resorting to conspiracy-laden rants and personal attacks again, it looks like we will have to wait for a future proposal to try again. Greenman (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am no apartheid sympathiser, as my edit history will show (see the article on Ciskei if you want evidence of this). However, the idea that this name change was a product of "multiracial democracy" despite it happening in the middle of a pandemic, with tiny support and minimal public consultation, is extremely unlikely. We're veering away from talk page guidelines here, but the local South African media, apart from being extremely "juniorised" (not a racist statement: here's a couple of black editors who spoke about it in 2005 [26]) is also politically fickle, and can't be relied on solely as a reliable source on this sort of thing. As for the usage by "local people" I'd certainly be interested to see that (outside of elite social media platforms).Park3r (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, Google Trends does not recognize Gqeberha as a name for the city, and actually proposes to compare it with the city of Port Elizabeth instead :). So if you change it to "Port Elizabeth" as a search term, the advantage will skew even more to the side of Port Elizabeth, as the search term Port Elizabeth has more meanings than a search term Port Elizabeth as a city, so necessarily it will sum up all those terms that are irrelevant to Port Elizabeth in South Africa (that is, the marine terminal in New Jersey, which is actually called Port Newark-Elizabeth, an unrelated village, also in New Jersey and a town in the Caribbean). As you can see from the pageviews of each of these articles, none of them come close in comparison with Port Elizabeth here; and, as you can guess, none of these terms are relevant outside (in the first two cases) downstate New York and New Jersey, and, in the third case, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; therefore, their influence on the hit count should be negligible. Similarly, Gqeberha only has got two meanings: the new city name (which even South Africans don't seem to be using too often from what I could say) and the eponymous river (which objectively few from outside Eastern Cape care about), so yes, we are comparing apples with apples.
Would you agree the Wikipedia stats are not relevant? The explanation you provide is fair, but it only shows something different: people don't care much about the new name, as otherwise there would have been a lot of name-changing (and, inherently, link-changing), which would mean that the ratio between Port Elizabeth and Gqeberha hits would have changed, either through direct search terms inside Wikipedia or through going through wikilinks (spoiler: it hasn't). The only thing that introduces bias here is Google search, so anyone referred from Google would hit as Port Elizabeth. But can it explain a 15-20-fold difference? I doubt it.
When I do a Google search over the last one month (8 months ago the change had not occured yet, and uptake was not immediate, so one month is more meaningful [...] Two notes here: first, the date when the name change occurred was on 23 February 2021, which is the starting date of all of my searches, and from my experience with name changes in Ukraine, these have been accepted in the media almost instantly; therefore, 8 months seems appropriate; and in fact, Google Trends don't see any change of relative usage of the terms at all, which means the term hasn't caught up (had it been at least marginally popular, it would have seen a gradual increase, see examples from Ukraine: Kropyvnytskyi [27], Kamianske [28], Bakhmut [29]). Second, the links you send me say "Hasło – "port elizabeth" – nie pasuje do żadnych wiadomości." [The search term "port elizabeth" has no related news stories], so yes, we all see different stuff in Google, that is, I don't see any of yours, sorry. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Google shows us different things. Following your links, Trends shows me the city of Gqeberha, with no mention of Port Elizabeth, so presumably its localising the results even at that level, which makes discussions like this more difficult. It supports the claim that Gqeberha is the term used in South Africa, while in the rest of the world the usage is still more mixed. Greenman (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the court, I would gander that something similar to what happens in India when names are changed happened in this case, where the name of the city itself is changed but institutions are not (eg. Mumbai and Bombay High Court). As for the results in media outside of South Africa, I think the problem is that Gqeberha is not reported on that much internationally and hence why a lot of stories ended up being on the same topic of vaccine manufacturing due to the issues of distribution and inequality snatching attention. Nonetheless, I appreciate your use of Google Trends to try to determine what the common name is, although I am still doubtful that the SA media hasn't changed. I am also seeing similar things as Greenman, where the field for the topic has been labeled "Gqeberha" but then, in the "Compared breakdown by city" section, the name "Port Elizabeth" is used! Not helping things at all. MSG17 (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there's no better comparison available, as the ngram database is available up to 2019. If you need the search term to search term comparison (with all the flaws pointed to above), there you go: Worldwide, South Africa, Eastern Cape Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The dispute over Port Elizabeth/Gqeberha will most probably be a fixture on the talk page of this article, therefore, I would ask all editors to consider this before escalating the talk page here into one of the lamest edit wars.

It took 13 move discussions to rename Kiev to Kyiv, and the thirteenth request was only granted as some extraordinary evidence that involved most of the respectable media outlets and international organisations, was presented there; the burden that high proved necessary to overcome the for now unfavourable Google stats. Just as was the case in Ukraine, this name change has political context (asserting Ukrainianness in the first case; getting rid of hallmarks of colonial history here). I would ask you to bear in mind that evidence of exceptional quality and quantity should be expected if the usage stats continue to be so skewed towards the now unofficial name. For the love of God, don't try to beat that record. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit misleading to comment as if you are an impartial participator when you have clearly taken a side. Also seems like you're downplaying the very real issues implicated here. Your assertion that the usage stats continue to skew towards the unofficial name is false. Sources supporting Gqeberha are being dismissed outright. Even those users opposing it tend to agree Gqeberha is on its way to being the most common name. In which case, there's no reason to oppose the moving of the article. Desertambition (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy-based reasons would be WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that WP:WIKIPEDIAFOLLOWS, it doesn't lead. The general reason would be that even if we happen to own a crystal ball and could determine with absolute certainty that a given name would become the WP:COMMONNAME, that doesn't change what the current COMMONNAME is - and we want the article at the current COMMONNAME, not the future or past one. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even those users opposing it tend to agree Gqeberha is on its way to being the most common name. I'm not sure where this comes from, but given past experience with place renaming in South Africa, this is not a foregone conclusion. There is no evidence that it will be the most common name. Even name changes like Bela Bela (which I proposed for renaming a long time ago) and Polokwane are called Warmbaths and Pietersburg by South Africans of all races, especially locals. Gqeberha is literally not pronounceable in English using standard phonemes. A renaming like Nelson Mandela City might actually take. But again we are veering off-topic again. The WP:COMMONNAME in English seems to still be Port Elizabeth or PE, informally. Park3r (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's the reality on the ground, but if Google Trends is any suggestion, Pietersburg is virtually obsolete, while Warmbaths usage is significant but still a minority. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Szmenderowiecki. When all the manuals of style that have stopped using Peking, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Rangoon and Kiev and started using Beijing, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Yangon and Kyiv stop using Port Elizabeth and start using Gqeberha, then Wikipedia should follow suit. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do many manuals of style even mention Gqeberha/PE? I noticed that AP did issue a tweet regarding Kyiv, and I did see a Facebook post regarding Kolkata, but they obviously can't keep track of every city in the world. And, what manuals of style should we look at for place names? Obviously AP and, if they have one, Reuters, but I am wondering what other manuals of style are known for documenting topological name changes in English (especially based on common usage) so that I can be better informed when future name changes come up. (Hopefully there are some free to access ones so that people can read them without having to shell out some cash!) MSG17 (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Port Elizabeth, which has a population of about a million, is South Africa's second-largest metropolitan district by area size and can be considered a major world city. Therefore, it is likely to be among the world cities mentioned in style guides. As for the guides themselves, the 13 move discussions to rename Kiev to Kyiv brought forth tremendous amounts of references regarding renaming, including style guides. A good place to start would be at Talk:Kyiv/sources#Style guides (Kyiv). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know that would be tremendous work to do so, but I think it would be nice if something like this is used as a "template" of sorts for starting future move discussions of major cities. MSG17 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.Invinciblewalnut (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppsoe - Port Elizabeth is still likely to be in people's minds at this moment, a bit like Czech Republic where that name is still commonly used. Also per Google site results, we get around 189m results for Port Elizabeth compared to 4.5m for gqeberha. Not sure if that will tilt towards 50-50 anytime soon. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose it does look like usage is moving to the new name, but not so convincingly as to move the article now. I expect I will support this in 6 months when the proposal is made again, but not today. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I accept names adopted by Google Maps, so I support not only changing Port Elizabeth to Gqeberha, but also Ivory Coast to Côte d'Ivoire, Macau to Macao, and the Czech Republic to Czechia. Vic Park (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME --Somerby (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose, majority of common people still use Port Elizabeth as well. Suffy69 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I searched for aspen facility in south africa in google news and most of the results mention Gqeberha, including global media such as NY times and Bloomberg. Vpab15 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2021 (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.

Fully protected edit request on 28 October 2021[edit]

A protected redirect, Gqeberha, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added and adjusted. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Port Elizabeth]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
}}
{{R from official name}}
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Port Elizabeth]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from official name}}
{{R with history}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Martin! and Best of Everything to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 March 2022[edit]

Port Elizabeth → Gqeberha – City has been renamed for over a year and reliable sources regularly use the new name.

Gqeberha man killed while pushing car - 27 March 2022

Gqeberha-based automotive company to invest millions in EC - 26 March 2022

Fury as Nelson Mandela University staffer runs her Gqeberha office from Qatar - 24 March 2022

Gqeberha pupils suspended after running amok in TikTok challenge - 24 March 2022

Remember from PE to Gqeberha? South Africa continues to change more town names! - March 21 2022

Mokoka breaks world 50km record with 2:40:13 in Gqeberha - 2022

Ryle de Morny sizzles at DHL Lifesaving championships in Gqeberha - March 24 2022

Career criminal from Gqeberha sentenced to 130 years imprisonment - March 23 2022

South Africa: Minister Senzo Mchunu visits Gqeberha - March 14 2022

South Africa: Gqeberha Shop Owners Fear the Rise in Xenophobia - 11 March 2022

Gqeberha bus shelters in ruins after contractor abandons site - 15 March 2022

Red Bull BC One: B-Girl Mids & B-Boy Ranks win cypher in Gqeberha - February 28 2022

These are a diverse range of sources from multiple news outlets. Desertambition (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 23:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added dates to support current WP:COMMONNAME. Desertambition (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Discott: as well, there may be others missing from previous discussions. Greenman (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Greenman. I am on record being in support of moving the article to Gqeberha, as it seems to now be its common name as well as its official name, and I would like to repeat that again here. Discott (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only pinged editors from the previous RM; it seems the only two that excluded was Discott and @Fbergo:. BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

France24 is also using Gqeberha:

S. Africa hope to end poor Durban run against Bangladesh - "South African captain Dean Elgar admitted on Monday that he was less than delighted that the Tests are being played in Durban and Gqeberha, formerly Port Elizabeth, another city where South Africa have struggled." Desertambition (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close. Per the closer of the previous discussion, this question should not be reopened until at least a year has past since the previous discussion, and it has been less than six months. BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware I, as a page mover, had the power to unilaterally impose moratoria on Wikipedia!! Cool, can't wait to use this new ability! Do you have any actual reason why this move shouldn't be carried out? Red Slash 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close 5 months since the last move request with no significant new information. Note that this is the 4th time in the past year this user had made the same request. --Spekkios (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither comment is based on existing WP:GUIDELINES. I have presented the new information quite plainly. 5 months is quite a long time and given the time frame, I think it's reasonable that we should take another look at what reliable sources are saying. Use of the new name is widespread and has become the WP:COMMONNAME. Desertambition (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:DEADHORSE, WP:NOTAGAIN, etc. You have presented 12 news articles instead of the 5 you presented last time. We can go look at trends, number of articles that use either name, etc. As I said: speedy close, nothing new. --Spekkios (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Google trends is not a magic wand that can be used to dismiss every source. We are missing a lot of context from that and it's clear that reliable news sources, especially in South Africa, are using Gqeberha instead of Port Elizabeth. Desertambition (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not using Gqeberha over Port Elizabeth. Since the change, news sources have been using them in roughly equal amounts. Compare results for Gqeberha vs Port Elizabeth. They are the same. 12 sources is way to few to argue that reliable news sources use one over the other. This change is far too WP:RECENT to know what the WP:COMMONNAME is, so we should stick with the current name as the long-term primary topic. As such, I oppose this proposal. --Spekkios (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This title change is well-supported in RS, so this article should be titled with the official name. As closer of the previous request, I also support this new request and would like to see it stay the course and come to consensus. No time limits are etched in stone, and consensus can change, sometimes sooner rather than later. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This is a reply to this notification. BilledMammal (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not say that I was "canvassed" if that is the implication here. I'm watching these closely, so I would have entered my rationale anyway. And I thought I should !vote rather than close since I closed a previous move request on this talk page, and some editors might consider me to be too "involved" to close this request. I think it's time to recognize the new names for these cities and towns. The secondary, independent, reliable sources that were published after the name changes do seem to give more weight and usage to the new names. And this will only grow stronger as more and more reliable sources use the new names. So changing this article's title may as well happen now, because if it doesn't, then it will surely be changed soon – certainly sooner rather than later. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 15:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I still believe that this move should be closed, per the closers previous statements, and the fact that four requests in a single year is far too many, if it is not then I also oppose it on the grounds that the name has not yet become the common name. For example, Google Scholar has 3430 results for Port Elizabeth, while only 434 for Gqeberha - while some of the results for the former refer to historical events, 90% would need to be for Gqeberha to be used more the Port Elizabeth in reference to the modern city, and the number is far less than that. Further, news agencies are split. The New York Times has seven results for Port Elizabeth" in the past year, across a variety of topics, compared to eight results for Gqeberha, almost all of which are on a single topic, an Aspen Pharmacare vaccine production site. CNN meanwhile has a single result for Port Elizabeth and a single result for Gqeberha, plus one result where it announced the change, and the Economist has one result for Port Elizabeth and no results for Gqeberha, plus one result where it announced the change.
It is also trivial to produce a list of reliable sources longer the the nominators that use Port Elizabeth, which counters their claim that they have demonstrated that the proposed name is now the common name - and I note that not all of the sources they provided are suitable, such as the one from Red Bull. For example:
  1. Port Elizabeth walk celebrates women with cancer
  2. 14 confirmed dead from F State train crash
  3. Celtic supporters oppose decision to move games to Port Elizabeth
  4. UDM to launch elections manifesto in Nelson Mandela Bay
  5. Cele, Sitole visit PE over gang violence
  6. Isuzu launches 100% owned car manufacturing plant in PE
  7. Police quell clashes between Omotoso protesters and church members
  8. SA’s internet freedom ranks high despite limitations
  9. PE heritage mosque vandalised with anti-Islamic words on the walls
  10. Durban port ranks in the bottom 3 out of 351 ports worldwide
  11. WATCH: DA federal chairperson Helen Zille allegedly assaulted and manhandled by police officers in the Eastern Cape; Ipid appoints an investigator
  12. Prison official caught 'red handed' handing 95 mandrax tablets to inmate
  13. Son killed while shielding young girl from a hail of gunfire rewarded with bravery award
  14. Turbulent times for SA commercial airline industry
  15. Two mega bridges and seven other major road works projects set to create work for 8 000 people
  16. Record spike in pollination demand puts honeybees in danger
BilledMammal (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As in previous instances, I wonder how many usages of "Port Elizabeth" in the searches actually do apply to the name of the city and not to some entity within the city? For example, a Port Elizabeth Deli and a Port Elizabeth theme park might retain their names even though the city itself has been renamed. How is this important distinction made in the searches? (if it even can be made at all?) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to note that Gqeberha changed its name in February of 2021. Most of the sources you have linked are from before the name change and thus aren't applicable in this situation.
Your sources are from:
26 October 2019
4 January 2018
21 October 2018
14 February 2019
3 December 2018
17 February 2018
21 October 2018
26 April 2021
May 7, 2021
May 21, 2021
Nov 1, 2021 - There is no actual mention of Port Elizabeth in this article, just an embedded tweet.
Dec 31, 2021
Nov 24, 2021 - This article is referring to an event prior to the name change
Aug 31, 2021 - This is an opinion article
Sep 23, 2021 - Single passing mention in the article in reference to a project which has been in development for years.
Dec 6, 2021 - Single passing mention
None of the sources are from 2022. Newer sources are needed to prove WP:COMMONNAME, like the ones provided above. Desertambition (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Also, you can't vote twice. Please condense both of your comments into one post. Desertambition (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. I used a Google search, rather than a Google News search, for those, and it seems to have ignored my date restriction of the past year. However, I note that it is irrelevant whether we are looking at a "passing mention" or something more substantial, as both provide us equal information on what name is in use. See the following for a list of uses since the name change:
  1. SA’s internet freedom ranks high despite limitations
  2. PE heritage mosque vandalised with anti-Islamic words on the walls
  3. Durban port ranks in the bottom 3 out of 351 ports worldwide
  4. Prison official caught 'red handed' handing 95 mandrax tablets to inmate
  5. Son killed while shielding young girl from a hail of gunfire rewarded with bravery award
  6. Turbulent times for SA commercial airline industry
  7. Two mega bridges and seven other major road works projects set to create work for 8 000 people
  8. Record spike in pollination demand puts honeybees in danger
  9. Bangladesh's Shakib backflips on South Africa tour
  10. 10 best international airports in Africa according to latest ranking
  11. Big South African Trips To Add To Your Bucket List
  12. ‘Everyone's expectations have gone up, even mine’
  13. South Africa raises over USD 960 million in 5G spectrum auction
  14. Power of the outcast mentality: 'We always take pride in our home performances'
  15. Post Office parcel delivery tested — with shocking results
  16. Cape Town Engen EMSS ceremony celebrates top learners
  17. Goa’s Sanjana in Indian junior swimming squad for South Africa tour
  18. Masrahfe praises Shakib for his sacrifice
Of course, all this proves is that "Port Elizabeth" is in use - just as all your evidence proves is that Gqeberha is in use - but it is useful, if only for demonstrating how the links you provided are not useful for the purposes of determining the common name. BilledMammal (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, almost all of those links are still less recent than the ones provided above and most of them are not from 2022. The sources provided also put the new name front and center in both the headline and the body of the article, whereas most of the articles you have linked only mention Port Elizabeth once in passing. Desertambition (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ten of them are from March 2022. The rest are the suitable links from the previous list. While whether the mention is passing or not is irrelevant, I note that many of yours are also passing mentions, such as this story. BilledMammal (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we won't agree. The only thing to do is wait for more editors to give their input. Desertambition (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the New York Times usage of Port Elizabeth, three at the time of viewing refer to historical events. The single CNN reference to Port Elizabeth is from April 2020. The single Economist example for Port Elizabeth refers to 2016. It should be fairly clear that current usage tends towards Gqeberha. Greenman (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. When there is a trend towards a name change, that name often starts to be used historically for the city - even if you disagree, these sources are at most neutral on the change (note how CNN's uses of Gqeberha seem to be limited to stories about a specific vaccine facility, suggesting that they are reflecting some document about that facility and are thus not independent of each other), and we will need more time to tell which way they will swing. Further, every piece of systematic evidence presented suggests that there is no trend towards Gqeberha. BilledMammal (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. We've been around and around on this one enough for the time being. The most common name is still the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is the new name and there appear to be sufficient RS to provide justification. As an aside I suspect that both names will continue to be used for an extended period. Gusfriend (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this is the 4th RM in less than a year, I propose a 1-year WP:MORATORIUM on RMs for this article, after this RM is closed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A one-year moratorium would seem wise at this point. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not counting the two aborted move requests (one of which was literally just a templating mistake), this is the second move request in one year. Two. In one year. That is ... not excessive. Red Slash 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: While this is likely an inevitable transition at some point (assuming the official name remains fixed), for now, based on current GLOBAL usage, it seems too early for this move. There was still substantial scholarly output on the city under the name "Port Elizabeth" in 2021, compared to a mere trickle for Gqeberha and it is a bit too early to see how (and whether) things have changed in 2022. In terms of news, the examples cited are solely from within South Africa, whereas the WP:COMMONNAME must be based on usage in global English-language coverage, where the naming convention still appears to be in flux. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why the global usage matters. If Americans and Canadians and Australians all started calling the River Thames the River Timmy, I doubt we'd move the article. WP:TIES controls. Red Slash 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although local usage has almost exclusively switched, global usage still matters. That said, most of the evidence provided here fails to take into account that many of the results refer to the historical name of the city. The scholar.google link first page alone includes many results from "Anatomy of the ANC in Power: Insights from Port Elizabeth, 1990 to 2019". Port Elizabeth was the name of the city for the entire period in question. Greenman (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whilst I think that it would make sense to rename the page now, a delay whilst the consensus is built up would provide an excellent chance to work on the name change part of articles like this as well as List of renamed places in South Africa and related pages. Gusfriend (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the usage in sources has shifted enough since the name change that we should follow that shift. This is essentially an attempt to maintain the preferences of the former colonial masters, and if the English language sources had ignored the name change that might be technically Wikipedia's preference, but given that they have shifted over I see no justification for not following suit. See also Talk:Qonce#Requested move 27 November 2021. nableezy - 17:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per outcome of previous RMs and the fact that changing the name does not make it the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - of course the people who oppose the move anyway say "it's too soon!". Without even looking at the sources that clearly show that the common name has been shifting, they confidently assert that nothing has changed. Also, is counting that hard? September 30 to March 29 is six months, not five. What is lost by switching the name of the article to the new name? Do South Africa's WP:TIES to this article mean nothing? Do the opposers have anything to defend their opposition besides "it's too soon" or some cherry-picked examples (from a whopping three different South African domains)? South Africans get to decide the names of cities in South Africa. It is flamboyantly imperialistic for another country to impose their names on South Africa. As the common name in English for this city in South Africa has become "Gqeberha" (see the cited sources, from a significantly wider variety of SA sites), so also should the article title. Red Slash 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:TIES isn't relevant here; WP:MPN requires the name to have become predominant in common global usage. Further, WP:ENGVAR, which WP:TIES is a component of, only applies to vocabulary, spelling, and grammar - toponyms typically come out of vocabulary but are not considered part of it. I would also note that there is no evidence here demonstrating that it is the common name even within South Africa, as single examples only tell us that the name is used, and do not tell us its prevalence in a significant majority of sources. BilledMammal (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Place names are not part of vocabulary" is a scorching hot take Red Slash 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support 6 months ago, I said I would probably support this move in 6 months. After 6 months ... the argument for a move seems solid, and the arguments against a move are largely procedural. I have never been to South Africa, but the references show that recent coverage overwhelmingly uses Gqeberha. There is a political issue here - some people seem to want the name of the metropolitan area to be Nelson Mandela Bay instead. But it is clear that Gqeberha is more common than Nelson Mandela Bay. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, we do need a 12-month moratorium regardless of the outcome of the RM. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor correction: no editor has opposed solely on procedural grounds, with every editor who opposed on those grounds also opposing on grounds of WP:COMMONNAME, either by providing their own systematic evidence, or implicitly or explicitly referencing the systematic evidence provided by others. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Your first !vote (you get 2?) was purely based on the fact that the previous closer had said to wait a year and made no mention of WP:COMMONNAME. Spekkios's !vote was also purely procedural and made no reference to WP:COMMONNAME. --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE      ) 19:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That simply isn't true at all. I quite clearly made reference to the common name. --Spekkios (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NAMECHANGES as per previous RM.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I request that a summary of usage be provided. We can cherrypick sources all we like to support either position, but the main questions remain the same.
  • What is the proportion of Gqeberha name usage vs Port Elizabeth usage and is there any positive dynamic now compared to September 2021 (and how positive it is)? I prefer not just "most recent queries", which may display differently depending on country or probably even the search engine, but some analytical stats (number of queries for either option?) The closest thing to that is the Google Scholar comparison, but this is not ideal as scholarship takes time to publish, and the change is recent. Browser stats, query stats etc. please.
  • Have any major news organisations agreed on the name change and can we, as in Kyiv example or with any Ukrainian city I pointed out is the example where I'd give support for the move, say that the consensus of major news organisations is that we should use Gqeberha? I see no quotes from the manuals of style, and only a single suggestion that a major news organisation (France 24) already uses the new name.
There are already several dozen Kb of text but I don't see objective metrics yet. This has to change.
Alternatively, not that I've seen the stats for that but if it's the case that the usage is common in ZA but not elsewhere, which means that WP:COMMONNAME plausibly applies to either solution, we can try not to quarrel about the Best and Most Truthful Title®™ but instead petition to implement a frwiki solution to the problem (English, like French is a pluricentric language anyway) and show alternative spellings just below the name. For an example of how that's done, see w:fr:vergeoise (normally called cassonade almost everywhere outside metropolitan France). In this case, I'd say that let the top say "Port Elizabeth" and the bottom "Gqeberha (official name)" (please don't quarrel about which of these should be on the top). If there are stats, self-assembled or published externally - doesn't matter for me so long as the methodology is valid and doesn't have weaknesses - present them and show that there indeed has been a change in the last 6 months. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's helpful, my Google search above showed 281 news results for 'Gqeberha' and 282 news results for 'Port Elizabeth' between 1st of Feburary 2021 and today. As for the results by site, the ones I looked at were BBC [30], Wapo [31], and NYT[32]. Not sure if that's helpful. --Spekkios (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How did you control for organizations with "Port Elizabeth" in the name, results referring to events prior to the name change, results posted prior to the name change, "Port Elizabeth"'s in other contexts or countries, etc? Desertambition (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google search results allow you to specify date and keywords, which is how I searched for results from the 1st of Feburary 2021 till today. Controlling for companies is harder but I would be extremely suprised if that affected the results much. --Spekkios (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal did the same thing above and the vast majority of their sources were outdated or not applicable. Just searching specific dates and keywords on Google is not reliable. You also need to control for Port Elizabeth's in other countries and contexts, names of organizations, companies, etc. Desertambition (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My initial search was in Google, rather than Google News - the issue is that Google doesn't appear to respect date restrictions, while Google News does, meaning the issues from that are not applicable to Spekkios' search. It is true that searches will never be perfect, but the issues when the name is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are typically minor, and such issues typically occur on both sides in a way that often balances out - for example, this article refers to the Gqeberha Magistrates Court, not Gqeberha, while this article will be counted as a use of Gqeberha in the search Spekkios linked, but it should have been counted as a use of Port Elizabeth.
I'll also add that regardless of their issues, they are considerably better than cherrypicked examples which tell us nothing about each names relative prevalence in sources. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're hardly "cherrypicked" examples. They show that almost every reliable news agency in the country of South Africa has completely switched over to Gqeberha. I included a diverse range of sources from multiple news outlets published recently. Neither of your links are from 2022.
I don't think Google can be trusted with date restrictions and there are many factors that can obfuscate results and muddy the waters. Specific examples from reliable sources is precisely what the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines request. Ngrams and Google results are supposed to be used in conjunction with reliable sources, not as the sole motivating factor of an argument. Especially when there are reasonable concerns about misleading results. Desertambition (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They show that some news agencies in South Africa have used Gqeberha at least once; I could (and have) presented a similar list in opposition to the move. I also note that several of your examples are not from news agencies, and others are from news agencies whose reliability is questionable; for example, News24 and allAfrica published stories describing a woman in Eastern Cape as being 118 years old, which if true would have made her the oldest living person in the world, but it is unlikely to be true. At some point, we need a discussion about those sources at WP:RSN.
Google search cannot be trusted with date restrictions, but Google News search can be. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised this about IOL[33] and I would endorse an RSN discussion about South African sources, especially post-2020. There are serious issues with reliability and journalistic standards.Park3r (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose based on the evidence that shows little change in terms of relative term popularity (regardless of whether we include IOL). It simply hasn't budged much (yet), and the starting position was sort of an indictment for any attempt to change it towards the other name. I'd be considering to !vote yes had the trend been consistently and more or less quickly upward, but that's simply not the case here. And that has nothing to do with colonial preferences. On the same note, I'd have !voted opposed for Qonce as the trends aren't favourable to the new name. This might be an issue of only more well-off South Africans having access to the internet, who'd tend to use new names instead of sticking to arguably colonial ones, but that's a proxy for actual usage (why would people bother to write the long "King William's Town" name in the search engines instead of short "Qonce" if it hadn't been for its popularity? Port Elizabeth, while sounding English, is also arguably a longer name).
I don't think that we should ban any name change discussion, but we need objective stats, and guidance from the press, if any. Name changes that base on selected sources (even if 20 of them) will automatically draw my oppose. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki: I think the Google Trends that Spekkios linked above addresses part of that, which shows that queries for Port Elizabeth are twenty times the number of queries for Gqeberha, and have had no movement over the past six months. Looking only at South Africa, the result is the same.
For Google Scholar results, you are right that some of the articles would have been started prior to the name change, but looking only at articles published in 2022 the result is the same; 442 results for Port Elizabeth compared to 113 results for Gqeberha. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Objective stats are overwhelmingly for the new name. News24 (South Africa's largest media site) gives, for Google news results in the past month:
  • 24 pages of results for Gqeberha
  • 6 for Port Elizabeth (of which large numbers are for other entities; a sports team, educational institution etc.) I have done similar comparisons for other local media in previous discussions. Other results provided here are not correctly removing historical references, other entities and the like. For the Scholar results listed above, the very first result references the name of an airport, I can also see an educational institution and others that have not been removed from the results. They are not useful for determining usage in referring to the city. Greenman (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MPN requires global usage, and News24 has reliability issues - see discussion above.
    For the Google Scholar results, while some uses of Port Elizabeth are not relevant (as are some uses of Gqeberha), the magnitude of the result in favour of Port Elizabeth is enough to ensure that does not impact the results. I also note that the first result is appropriate to include as a result for Port Elizabeth, because while it focuses on the airport, it does mention the city as Port Elizabeth in the text. For the educational institute I am not certain I am looking at the same result, but if I am that also uses "Port Elizabeth" at one point in reference to the city and not as part of the name of an educational institute. BilledMammal (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep saying News24 is not a reliable source but you have not brought these concerns to WP:RSP. Fact is that News24 is a reliable news site and the largest in South Africa. If you want it to stop being used a source, it has to be deprecated. It makes no sense to dismiss perhaps the most notable news organization in the country. Desertambition (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no credible argument that News24 is not a reliable source, in particular when it comes to the name of a major city in the country of which they are the dominant media house. You can repeat the same exercise with other major media sites, such as Mail and Guardian, Daily Maverick, and will get similar results. I'm sure it's possible to cherrypick dubious statements from every major newspaper in existence, but its the overall standard that counts. Even IOL, which has fallen from being a quality media site to a situation where it's become notorious for simply making things up, at least gets mostly gets the name of the city correct. Yes, WP:MPN requires international usage, but the point is that local usage has almost exclusively moved, and international usage takes it lead from there. There are very few current articles about the city, hence it's important to exclude historical references. A good example would be the recent cricket test played at Gqeberha, which international media seem to use the new name for (BBC, ESPN AU) and as described in other comments. You state that the magnitude of results in Google Scholar are sufficient, but with no systematic removal of the false positives, the data cannot be used reliably. Much more useful is the recent news content about the city, and the evidence seems overwhelming. Greenman (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a credible argument presented above; sources that stick by their story after it has been widely discredited are not reliable. As for the Google Scholar results, a manual review finds that approximately 20% are not relevant; since 75% would need to not be relevant to result in Gqeberha being the common name (assuming, incorrectly, that all Gqeberha results are relevant) it is clear that the results strongly support "Port Elizabeth". BilledMammal (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per me at previous RM: 1,680m results for Port Elizabeth and 5.35m results for Gqeberha still implies "Port Elizabeth" is used more. It is far too soon for these site results to be more 50-50 at this point. But I do agree that the next RM should be at least 365 days after this one is closed and not moved as a result. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Same response I gave to Spekkios above: How did you control for organizations with "Port Elizabeth" in the name, results referring to events prior to the name change, results posted prior to the name change, "Port Elizabeth"'s in other contexts or countries, etc? Desertambition (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Close I have to agree with the first comment. It's too soon after the original !vote and not much has changed as National news still say Port Elizabeth which shows PE is still WP:COMMONNAME. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article you linked is WATCH LIVE | Isuzu IRONMAN African Championship in Gqeberha
    Doesn't seem to support your point unless I'm missing something. Desertambition (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you mean to write Support? The article you reference uses Gqeberha, as does the national media almost exclusively.
  • Oppose for reasons given by others. I don't consider IOL to be a WP:RS anymore, along with most of the newspapers in the group[34], and the remaining sources have been known to vacillate, often for years, on name changes. I'll also note, as an aside, that we still don't have a recorded pronunciation of Gqeberha, which would made it abundantly clear why it's unlikely to ever become the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Park3r (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How to say Gqeberha - the new Xhosa name for Port Elizabeth - BBC
    VIDEO: This is how you pronounce Gqeberha, the new name for PE - IOL
    Here's some good examples of how to pronounce it. It wouldn't be difficult to add the pronunciation to the article. Desertambition (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested it more than a year ago. [35] Park3r (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw the one you posted four hours ago. Both of those articles were posted right after the name change. You really could have looked it up at some point in the past year. Two Xhosa speakers also offered to record a pronunciation under your post. They may not have done it but Wikipedia/Wikimedia is notoriously difficult to navigate. Still very possible to have someone record a pronunciation. Desertambition (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know how to pronounce it, however we can't use the pronunciations you linked to in Wikipedia. Park3r (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per previous discussion. Local media almost exclusively uses the new name, and international media increasingly so. The most cursory look at the counter-arguments given here shows many of the examples supposedly supporting retaining the old name refer to historical events. Greenman (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. I'm currently watching the second Test match between South Africa and Bangladesh at St George's Park, with all the commentators referring to Gqeberha, with match reports also doing so. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I see similar usage for both "Gqeberha" and "Port Elizabeth" in both domestic and international news coverage over the past year. There is a very slight edge in favor of "Gqeberha" after excluding "Port Elizabeth" usage in historical contexts (e.g. colonial history) and excluding hits of other entities containing the name "Port Elizabeth" (e.g. Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, Port Elizabeth, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Port Elizabeth TVET College, Port of Port Elizabeth).
    For this calculation, I looked at the 26-27 pages of hits from the past year that each search query produced in Google News and manually discounted usage (a fair number of "Port Elizabeth" hits were for the community and terminal in New Jersey). I didn't look at academic sources because the name change is so recent (the academic publishing process is almost always at least one year long) and because so much of the corpus is for the city in past historical eras.
    This article move is therefore compliant with WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:MPN, with "Gqeberha" being the ever-so-slightly more common name in recent English RS coverage. — MarkH21talk 22:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MarkH21: I found a slightly different result; can you give more details on your method? And did you consider whether the sources were reliable; for example, the issue above with News24? I would also note that even if we look at scholarly articles published since 2022 there is a strong preference for Port Elizabeth, even when manually removing articles that are not referring to this Port Elizabeth, or that are referring to the past. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I excluded a few obvious non-RSes that still show up in Google News (e.g. I remember a wiki or two showing up), but I did not explicitly exclude the WP:NEWSORGs (I do not have much specific domain knowledge about these regional news sources and none of them have consensus for unreliability at WP:RSP/WP:RSN).
        My main point about academic sources is that most academic sources published in 2021-2022 were written before the 2021 name change, since the publication process takes several months to years (stats for academic journals in all disciplines - it's even longer for academic books). Therefore, it's not very informative whether a 2021 or early 2022 academic article or book uses "Port Elizabeth". — MarkH21talk 23:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at that source, it suggests that the majority published in 2022 will be from after the name change, meaning that the data is useful in determining the common name.
        In general, I see this as further evidence that this move request is too soon; we should wait another year, when there will be clearer evidence either to move the article, or, as is currently indicated, to keep it at its current title. BilledMammal (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: it is increasingly common to referred to Port Elizabeth as Gqeberha. I have seen it increasingly commonly referred to as such in the media and in conversations with other South Africans. I was in the city a few months ago and most of the people I spoke to there use the two names interchangeably. This, in addition to the official name change, reinforces my opinion that the article should be moved.--Discott (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: Not only this city, but the following cities/countries also need to be moved:
Cape Verde → Cabo Verde
Czech Republic → Czechia
East Timor → Timor-Leste
Ivory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire
Macau → Macao
I'm also keeping a close eye on:
Turkey → Türkiye
2001:8003:9008:1301:A88B:2633:A2C4:EB02 (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I realize a lot of the support comments are very close to votes, but this comment is worth pointing out as a particularly blatant example. BilledMammal (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a blatant example of someone chipping in with zero knowledge of/interest in the guidelines on basing place names on English language common usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of "Cabo Verde" before and looking at that article it is the Portuguese equivalent, not English. I've opposed the proposal of moving Ivory Coast to Côte d'Ivoire two months ago based on the English equivalent usage on other country names (Wales, Spain, Germany instead of Cymru, España and Deutschland respectively (though I did not include Germany in that RM on Talk:Ivory Coast). I remember playing a game where you think of nine things from different categories beginning with 'D', including a country, where someone said "Deutschland" but that was rejected because that's not the English equivalent. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA World Factbook changed Cape Verde to Cabo Verde long time ago. 2001:8003:9008:1301:F813:952F:9746:1731 (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nobody calls it that but the government. Here in Australia, I can guarantee that nobody will know where Gqeberha is (also when I typed "Gqeberha" my iPad has put a red underline under it, so Apple doesn't recognise it yet). However, people know where Port Elizabeth is (mostly because it's known for tourism and its shark attacks among other things). And per what @Discott: said above, it would be stupid to move pages to their endonyms instead of their English exonyms (it would be like if the French Wikipedia moved the page Australie to Australia even though that's the French name). Cabo Verde is Portuguese for Cape Verde, Czechia is alternate name for the Czech Republic (however most people, including myself, use the term "Czech Republic"), Timor-Leste is Portuguese for East Timor (this name also used to be used in English but isn't anymore), Côte d'Ivoire is French for Ivory Coast, Macao is Portuguese for Macau and Türkiye is Turkish for Turkey (I have never seen "Türkiye" used in English except when referring to the Turkish name). I suggest that this proposal be closed ASAP. Sikova na Ositerelia (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    Also when I did a Google search for Port Elizabeth I got 1,530,000,000 results, compared to only 6,230,000 for Gqeberha. Sikova na Ositerelia (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)sock of banned user[reply]
This is not a helpful addition. "Nobody" is purely anecdotal and obviously inaccurate as the briefest of Google searches of Australian media will show. And as has been pointed out multiple times above, your Google search would have included numerous references to historical name, as well as multiple entries of the "Gqeberha, previously Port Elizabeth" type. What's important is recent usage. Locally usage has moved almost exclusively the new name, while international usage is rapidly following. Greenman (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes good point.
I didn't think of the basis that both those names are used in multiple results when I used the same search myself on both requested moves so I won't be doing that again if a similar requested move takes place on other locations/countries around the world. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have no right to represent my country. Anyway, since you are banned for WP:SOCK, your vote won't count.
By the way, Macao is actually the English name whereas Macau is the Portuguese name. 2001:8003:9008:1301:F813:952F:9746:1731 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per earlier comments showing widespread usage in local, national, and international media. Combined with the official name change I believe this is grounds for the move. Aquaticonions (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support NAMECHANGE is clear: a new official name in regular usage since the name change, which is clearly the case here, would override an old COMMONNAME, especially if local sources are using it robustly. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and for reasons listed by User:SportingFlyer, User:MarkH21, User:Aquaticonions, and User:Red Slash above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above comments. The common name in English is the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Propose this be closed (I already voted oppose above). Nominator has been blocked again.[36] There isn't a consensus. It's also interesting that these name change discussions take away a lot of oxygen from these topics: the fact that the city is going to immenently run out of water is almost certainly more important than a name change. Park3r (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think there is a consensus to move here, but yes it should be formally closed. The nom being blocked on unrelated grounds isnt relevant here though. nableezy - 12:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There still isn't consistent use of the new name. [37][38] Anyone who has followed renaming sagas in South Africa knows that the media switch back and forth over a period of years, and often just revert to the original name of the place. There's an element of pandering initially, followed by a realisation that ordinary people don't actually use the new name, and then a reversion to the old name. Coupled with the collapse of media circulation and general journalistic credibility, there needs to be a serious evaluation of WP:RS for South African sources, which has been raised elswhere in this discussion. Wikipedia shouldn't be leading the way in promoting new names unless there is a clear and durable consensus that a name is the WP:COMMONNAME, otherwise we risk WP:CIRCULAR references. Regardless, I agree this proposal needs to close.Park3r (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat related grounds. If they weren't blocked, they would have been topic banned by community consensus from RM's and other areas. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both names are in use. The new name is not predominant. In a Google News search limited to the last year: "Port Elizabeth" 308, Gqeberha 295. People have difficulty knowing how to spell the new name: Gqberha 56. The exact numbers will vary from day to day. WP:NAMECHANGES says that we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. It does not say that we should give zero weight to sources written before the name changed. "Port Elizabeth" is vastly more common than "Gqeberha" in searches when you include things written both before and after the name changed."Port Elizabeth","Gqeberha"-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "We shouldn't title this article X because sometimes people misspell it" is not a compelling argument, to put it bluntly. In fact, the correct + this one incorrect spelling cleanly beat out the old name in the sources you yourself have provide. Red Slash 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is considerable overlap between the two searches; a search "Gqeberha" OR "Gqberha" returns 299 results. And I think it is a reasonable argument, as it suggests that the name is so rare in general use that people haven't been able to learn how to spell it yet, which adds to the Google Trends evidence provided previously telling us the same thing. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your search includes results for Port Elizabeth, New Jersey as well as articles that use both names. "Port Elizabeth" -"Gqeberha" -"New Jersey" gives 293 results, and "Gqeberha" OR "Gqberha" -"Port Elizabeth" returns 300. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 23:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the arguments already made further up - it seems as though there are clearly enough sources to demonstrate that usage has shifted to the new name. Misspellings shouldn't be relevant, given there are many places where that's an issue with the name (we don't use a different name for Rio de Janeiro just because people can't spell Janeiro Turnagra (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NAMECHANGES giving weight to sources after the change, which seem to have largely moved to the new name. I was also swayed by the !vote of Paine Ellsworth, who closed the previous move and imposed the quasi-moritorium, but now supports the move and opposes shutting down the discussion based on arbitrary deadlines. The arguments that name changes in South Africa often don't stick carries little weight with me, as if the pendulum swings back the other way, we can always move the article back. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 23:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace base name use with Port Elizabeth (disambiguation) whatever happens. Either this is Port Elizabeth, South Africa or Gqeberha -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Elizabeth&oldid=1091412927"