This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
"In all, 212 people were killed during the siege, with over 600 wounded. Boer losses were significantly higher." Perhaps we shouldn't be making a distinction between Boer and people? :-) just a thought.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
57.66.51.165 (
talk)
08:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Actually I think a better term would be 212 "defenders" or "besieged" were killed....
The term "inhabitants" might imply only long-term residents, whereas "defenders" includes long-term residents (mostly civilian) as well as military forces gathered under Baden-Powell.
The sentence currently reads: "In September 1904,
Lord Roberts unveiled an obelisk at Mafeking bearing the names of those who fell in defence of the town. British losses during the siege were 212 people killed, soldiers and civilians, and more than 600 wounded. Boer losses were significantly higher."
(1) Spelling of "defence" should be changed to defense?
(2) Where is the cross reference or hyperlink to the obelisk unveiled by Roberts? What is it's name? Who built it? What material was it built from?
(3) Where is the reference for British and ZAR losses? Can we change Boer losses to ZAR losses, as not only "Boers" were involved in that war, and most certainly in that battle, unless you can provide the sources stating that?
JanBMRabie (
talk)
15:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)reply
distances
Why are all the distances in this article given in miles instead of metric? South Africa doesn't use miles (nor have we ever I don't think)
Joziboy 14 March 2006, 21:10 (UTC)
Well, to be pedantic, we did, before the
metrication which started in 1967. Nonetheless, imperial units are inappropriate for an article on a South African topic, and I have metricated the measurements and cleaned up the introduction a bit. -
htonl21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Tswana phonotics
Probably something that people have not considered is that the same barolong call the place Mahikeng. Meaning that in terms of thier phonology the h replaces the f but themeaning is still the same. If anyone is an expert on tswana phonotics please infom why that is the case. For instances people still to date use MAheking instead of the Mafikeng modern western writing. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
196.25.35.187 (
talk)
15:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Removing "(disputed — see talk page)" from article
The above words make the article look unprofessional and if no one objects I will remove them from the article. People are welcome to discuss the dispute (about the spelling of Mafikeng) here. --
Roisterer13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Mahikeng?
Where did Mahikeng come from? It says this was the historic name but the only historic name i'm aware of is Mafeking. By the way when exactly did it get renamed?— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bezuidenhout (
talk •
contribs)
22:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Could somebody please write a short sentence (in the article, not on the discussion page) explaining how the various names are pronounced? Thank you. --
212.88.16.205 (
talk)
08:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Mahikeng. 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.
I have just modified 3 external links on
Mahikeng. 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.
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.
Mahikeng →
Mafikeng – Proposed to revert premature move to the new official name. This is per the article, which states that the town is "still commonly known as Mafikeng", as well as per
Ngrams which shows that while use of Mahikeng has grown in recent years, Mafikeng is still the
WP:COMMONNAME.
BilledMammal (
talk)
22:03, 3 December 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 7 January 2022
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.
Mafikeng → Mahikeng – Despite claims the old name is still used, I was unable to find any proof of that being true. Previous move request cited the article itself as proof. Wikipedia is not a source that can be used to prove something on Wikipedia. It doesn't make sense. Name was changed in 2010 and reliable sources regularly use the new name.
Comment: The previous request also cited and linked to Ngrams. If you had clicked it, you would have seen evidence that the old name is still being used. Not necessarily, on its own, evidence sufficient to carry the decision, but evidence.
Largoplazo (
talk)
00:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose, per
ngrams and this (referenced) quote from the article "Despite this the town's ANC-run local government and most local residents still refer to the town as Mafikeng both informally and formally", as in the above move discussion; the new name has not met the requirements of
WP:MPN to become predominant in common global usage. I'm not sure why we are redoing this move discussion so soon after the previous, but as we are, here are a few news sources (
123) and a few scholarly sources (
123).
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
BilledMammal You continue to cite The South African and I have yet to see how it is a reliable source. Both SABC links only use the name once in passing, whereas every article I linked uses the name. My sources are all more up to date than your academic sources as well.
Desertambition (
talk)
04:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I've already mentioned this to you. I shouldn't have used it earlier and I have said that. No, the onus is not on me. I have stopped using it and I am asking you to prove it. That doesn't address anything besides that one source anyways. My argument stands.
Desertambition (
talk)
05:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose move to Mahikeng, Support move to Mafeking per
WP:COMMONNAME. Google News searches show that all three versions of the name are about equally common name in recent English-language news stories:
Mafeking 258 resultsBut many of these are about places or organisations in other parts of the world, named after the famous siege, and are therefore irrelevant.
Ngram data up to 2019 shows that the historical English-language name Mafeking had absolute dominance before 1980, and in the sources looked at in Ngrams has remained more common than Mafikeng since then. I would guess that Mafikeng was the official name when the
National Party were in power, but it never became the common name internationally, as evidenced by Mafeking being used in English-language books, etc. --
Toddy1(talk)00:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply amended --
Toddy1(talk)22:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. Virtually all of the results for "Mafeking" are either about the Siege of Mafeking during the Boer War, or about places elsewhere in the world that were named after Mafeking at the time of the Boer War (streets and houses in England, villages in Canada and Trinidad, etc.) Hardly any of them refer to the contemporary South African town. -
htonl (
talk)
09:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, you are right. Quite a lot of the results for "Mafeking" are either about the Siege of Mafeking during the Second Boer War, or about places elsewhere in the world that were named after Mafeking at the time of the Boer War.--
Toddy1(talk)22:15, 9 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.
Requested move 31 March 2022
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.
Oppose simply because this is the third discussion of this in four months (including one discussion that led to its title being reverted to this one) and it's way to soon to get entrenched in this discussion yet again when we just had one in January. (This reflects no bias on my part. I have no stake in whether the city is called, here or elsewhere, Mafikeng, Mafeking, Mahikeng, Maheking, or Denise.)
Largoplazo (
talk)
11:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)reply
In response to both of the above comments, it's worth noting that there is
WP:NOTIMELIMIT for changes like this and reliable sources have continued to use the current name since the last move request.
Desertambition (
talk)
18:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, there is nothing wrong with that. Only two comments were made and more input would be helpful. Especially considering objections were largely about a
WP:TIMELIMIT rather than
WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. Reliable sources have continued to use the current name since the last move request, as shown by the sources provided above.
Desertambition (
talk)
18:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Ngrams only go up to 2019 and I believe you have not adequately controlled for historical events, organizations, other countries, etc that use the previous name. How have you controlled for these elements in your search results/ngrams?
Desertambition (
talk)
19:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:TIMELIMIT is about deletion. As such, it has nothing to do with this process and wasn't the basis for my comment, which was simply: We just had this discussion, twice, and it's unlikely that there has been a tectonic shift in demonstrable usage patterns in that the brief period since then. There's a reason
Czech Republic has, for the last couple of years, had a formal one-year moratorium (established by RFC) between such discussion. As for this discussion, perhaps the fact that two people objected, and then it sat a week without further contribution was a sign of exactly the sort of fatigue that such repetitive discussions lead to, and a sign that waiting a while and providing sufficient time for naming in reliable sources to have evolved before delving into this question again is well advised.
Largoplazo (
talk)
22:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
It is unclear how long exactly I should wait before making a move request. I cannot find a guideline that says I need to wait a year between move requests and media continues to use the current name almost exclusively. Does not seem unreasonable to propose a new discussion when I am providing sources that didn't exist during the last move request.
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.