Talk:Eswatini

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Talk:Swaziland)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also: Talk:Eswatini/Archive

Swaziland -> eSwatini[edit]

The official country name of the Kingdom of Swaziland has been changed to the Kingdom of eSwatini.

Please change the title of the article.—The preceding comment was added by 91.115.50.230 (talkcontribs)

No, because no non-Swazi readers know the new name. Please read Wikivoyage:Naming conventions:
articles should use the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries. This means that official names are often not appropriate for use as article names. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


  • I believe that the pages relating to Swaziland should be moved to Eswatini. It has changed literally everywhere for example the United Nations, Wikipedia all users have agreed to adopt the new name Eswatini. Swaziland no longer in use.—The preceding comment was added by Ben2949 (talkcontribs)
Thanks for your concern. These huge modifications on our breadcrumb navigation cannot happen overnight; consensus must be achieved. This discussion is opened already. The community will manifest itself. Please wait for said consensus BEFORE making any changes to any page; pretty please with sugar on top, do not edit war on this. Ibaman (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
It may be time: Lonely Planet and TripAdvisor are using the new name. Let's let the discussion run for a couple of weeks before making a decision, though. Ground Zero (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
What's changed? Is this new name now suddenly, within a few months, the most widely used one in English? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Adoption of a new name for a country into common use is never sudden, but changing the name of an article always is. Can we ever say that Tuesday, "Swaziland" was more common, and on Wednesday "eSwatini" was? No, of course not. If sudden and definitive change is our criterion, then we won't ever move the article.
The evidence is mounting: TripAdvisor and Lonely Planet, Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a similar policy on article naming to us, and a much larger group of editors who discuss these things. There were several lengthy move discussions through 2018, until it was finally moved in October. Evidence is provided there of the common use of Eswatini in English-speaking world media around the world. Let's not spend a whole lot of time second-guessing those deliberations. Ground Zero (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I have read through the entire Wikipedia talk thread, and clearly, their criteria are not the same as Wikivoyage's. They are relying on what name news sources and other encyclopedias use ("its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources"), and those opposing a move were doing so on the basis that the new name is not (or not yet) the most used in English vernacular. The name most used in English vernacular is the only criterion on Wikivoyage. I think the opposers have a stronger argument for now, for the purposes of this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Our policy does not make any reference that I can find to "the vernacular". Wikivoyage:Naming_conventions says: "the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries" and "For destinations where multiple names or spellings are in use and there isn't an obviously correct English name, the title should be the most commonly-used name in the local language." The English-language sources cited are a the only indicator of common use in English that we have. What evidence would you accept for "common use" if not media sources? A public opinion poll survey on English-speaking countries? If you are looking for a citation for common use by the person in the street, there never will be one, and we'll end up with a travel guide full of Siams and Upper Voltas and Ceylons. That won't look good. Anyone planning to travel to Swaziland had better learn very quickly that they are going to Eswatini or they will run into trouble. Ground Zero (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move The most common name used among anyone who knows what he's talking about is eSwatini (or possibly an Anglicized "Eswatini"). Since virtually no one talks about Swaziland/eSwatini in common conversation, we can't exactly do even casual polling on a common name. Instead, we have published sources like the ones mentioned above or (e.g.) BBC. Create redirects and a note at the beginning since the name change was fairly recent. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Should we also change East Timor to Timor Leste? How about Vatican City to Cittá del Vaticano? As far as what evidence we use, well, what evidence do we use for English language varieties? Primarily the collective experience of English-speakers who edit this site, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Basically, as I see it, the question is, would more than a handful of non-specialists outside of Southern Africa have any idea what eSwatini is? Would more know what Swaziland is, even if they're a bit vague on its precise borders? I guess we'd have to balance against that the number of English-speakers in South Africa who know very well where the kingdom is vs. the number of English-speakers outside of the region who have never heard of the country under either name, and I'm honestly not sure where that balance would end up, so I may have to grudgingly concede to the inexorable attempts to change the name on this site, which are bound to continue coming. I should say, I'm not at all convinced about using Cote d'Ivoire as the name of that country in English, but I think Myanmar got very widely accepted (as did Pinyin spellings like Beijing and Guangzhou, earlier). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
We have a precedent; a while ago it was suggested that Cape Verde should be moved to Cabo Verde, because the government of Cape Verde had decided that should be the official English name for the country, even as Cabo Verde in practice isn't the most common name used in English. The article wasn't moved. And to my understanding we do have a status quo bias here on WV. So I would not suggest we rename the article, at least as for now. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ikan Kekek, if you think the Vatican City and East Timor should be moved, propose moves at those pages. Throwing those in muddles this discussion. (For the record, TripAdvisor and Wikipedia call them East Timor, Vatican City and Cape Verde, while Lonely Planet uses Timor-Leste and Cabo Verde.)

Since the media in English-speaking countries (and other popular travel sites) use the new name, it is reasonable to believe that anyone with an interest in the country will know that name. The redirect from Swaziland will take care of anyone still using the old name. I don't think it is reasonable to say that our tiny pool of contributors can make a better call on this than the much larger pool of contributors at Wikipedia, and international media, and other travel sites. I have posted a note at WV:Requests for comment to solicit more input. Ground Zero (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think those articles should be moved, I am unconvinced this article should be moved, and I think Cote d'Ivoire should probably be moved to Ivory Coast. Consensus rules, so I'll probably be overruled on this name, but you've got my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move I think This should definitely be move because the king denounced its colonial name Swaziland from its constitution and Eswatini has become the official English name. For example Rhodesia and Zaire old names for Zimbabwe/DRC are no longer in use and as time goes on you will find more sources relating to Eswatini rather than Swaziland Swaziland is slowly becoming extinct. —The preceding comment was added by Ben2949 (talkcontribs)
Please read Wikivoyage:Naming conventions. "Because it's the official name" is specifically not a criterion for naming on this site, and the question is just how slowly the name "Swaziland" is becoming extinct. I would urge all new users to read the Wikivoyage guidelines linked to and discussed several times in this thread before commenting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • At some point we should move the article to eSwatini or Eswatini, but I am not sure whether that is now or later (2025?). Looking at other travel sites, I see some have "Eswatini (Swaziland)", and but more just have Swaziland. I didn't find any of the main booking sites just using Eswatini (however it is capitalised). I don't think we should use "Eswatini (Swaziland)", which would suggest disambiguation rather than an alternative name. When referring to the country elsewhere I would suggest "Eswatini / Swaziland" (there are about 80 incoming links Swaziland, ignoring user pages etc 40-50 need to be changed). If a hotel called itself "mOtel", we would call it "Motel", and I think that we should do the same and use Eswatini unless there strong evidence of eSwatini being used in other countries, which so far I haven't seen. Although the name change was announced in April last year, is there an official timetable for the change or an indication of what percentage of signs in the country have been changed? AlasdairW (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not move yet. I agree with AlasdairW that around 2025 may be a more appropriate time (though, personally, I'd say to go later rather than sooner). Let's remember that redirects are in place, so if anyone types "Eswatini", they still get the right article. Neither names are well-known; Swaziland is a small country. But still, keep in mind that "Swaziland" is more natural for English speakers than "Eswatini". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
We shouldn't make ourselves like out of date. Maybe I'm mistaken in the discussion on the Main Page about being the most up-to-date if there is a strong preference to lag behind other sites and media. Even that other wiki site, which has almost no active editors these days, has moved the article. It's disappointing that Wikivoyage wants to stand out by living in the past. Ground Zero (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
That's really a pretty disrespectful argument. You know very well that Wikivoyage has no policy to automatically change the name of an article a few months after an official name change is made, and you know why, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this could just be an example of Wikivoyage being different than some other sites, for good reason. As I see it, in a case like this, redirects are more important; someone who types "Eswatini" into our search system still gets the article with the same content about the country.
While I can understand the concerns that WV doesn't seem to be growing quickly enough, the issue of this article's name will have little impact on WV's future. Let's not look at things in a way that's out of proportion — Swaziland is a very small country. Probably, the majority of people in the world don't even know that Swaziland/Eswatini exists, let alone which name to use. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, in no way do I mean to be disrespectful toward your contributions here. But at no time have I suggested that the article name be changed because of the change in the official name of the country. I fully agree that that is not a valid reason for changing the article name. And it's why People's Republic of China is appropriately redirects to China.
As I've pointed out on your talk page, when I was travelling in Cote d'Ivoire in 1990, no English-speaking travellers called it "Ivory Coast". Your suggestion that moving that article was a mistake supports my argument that our little group of contributors is not as good a barometer of common usage on English as is the panoply of other websites and media sources cited here and in the Wikipedia discussion I linked. Lagging behind the rest of the web is not a good look for Wikivoyage. (I have not been to southern Africa yet, so I have no personal experience with Swaziland.)
The complement to SelfieCity's argument about redirects is that if we update the article name, anyone searching on the old name will be redirected automatically to the name that others on the web and in the media are using. Something they need to know if they are going to visit the country. Ground Zero (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Point taken on Cote d'Ivoire, but isn't a web search a bit more reliable than just media and encyclopedic practices? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
And one other thing: just because we continue to use Swaziland here, doesn't mean that were are, to quote, "lagging behind the rest of the web." It would be very unfortunate if any event caused WV to lag behind other websites, but at the same time I don't believe the Swaziland issue has much, if any, relevance to whether we are keeping up to date with other sources. Also, User:Ikan Kekek has a good point about web search. Quite a few websites still use Swaziland, but there are a lot of sources mentioning the name change: see [1] and [2]. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

If you do a Google search on Swaziland and look at articles updated since April 2018, you end up mostly with redirects to articles that use the new name, e.g., Google's own article, and the others mentioned above (Wikipedia, Trip Advisor, that other travel site, government and international organizations, Encyclopedia Britannica, the CIA), and articles about the name change. I came up with some commercial travel sites that use the old name. They look like they haven't been updated in a long time because they do not mention that the country officially uses another name. The New York Times's only article since the name change, a film review, uses the old name. The Times of Swaziland has not changed its name, but calls the country "eSwatini".

So it's hard to find a current site in the top listings that has not switched to the new name, other than Wikivoyage and The New York Times's film review section. They are lagging behind most other sites in making the change -- this is what "lagging behind" means. Most other sites have changed to the new name and we have not. Ground Zero (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, change the name, but should it be "Eswatini" or "eSwatini"? And of course keep redirects from Swaziland. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, we're lagging behind. I don't really know which capitalization is better, but here is the discussion on Wikipedia. Unless there's a good reason to do otherwise we might as well follow their reasoning and use "Eswatini". (And of course we should keep the redirect and mention the older name in the lead.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
If we change the name, it should be "Eswatini", not "eSwatini", per standard English Capitalization. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with English capitalization. We can leave the fancy stuff for the siSwatini-language version of Wikivoyage when it is created. Ground Zero (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree with this. The question would be, which capitalization is used most in English (and maybe in signage)? There are examples of non-English capitalization already used on this site - some national park in South Africa (I forget which one) is one example, and there is also someplace in the Netherlands with two capital letters in the beginning of the word; I forget which one that is, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
IJsselmeer. We use that spelling. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • To clarify, my comment 'If we change the name, it should be "Eswatini", not "eSwatini"...' is not intended to be an endorsement for moving the page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems like there's general agreement on moving to "Eswatini". I'll try to carry out the move sometime in the next few days unless someone else gets to it first. Some adjustments will also be needed in other articles and maps, as we've been doing (but haven't completely finished yet) for North Macedonia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there? Why not eSwatini? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone arguing for "eSwatini". Ground Zero and SelfieCity expressed support for "Eswatini" as being standard English capitalization, and I pointed out that that's also the capitalization Wikipedia uses. You expressed uncertainty about which capitalization is better and argued against Ground Zero and SelfieCity's reasoning, but didn't argue for one capitalization or the other. If there's an argument in favor of "eSwatini" then we should consider it, but so far it seems no one here has made one. For what it's worth, the Wikipedia discussion I linked to includes other reasons for using "Eswatini", which also seems to be the English-language capitalization used by the Swazi government. Both capitalizations seem to be widely used in English online. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, that's clear. Thanks for answering my question. So yeah, I guess there's a consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I still oppose the move, and I do not see consensus for such a move. There is a redirect in place to Swaziland from Eswatini, so currently, there is no need to move the page. In a year or two, however, I think we should reconsider. That is still my stance on the issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm kind of with SelfieCity, but also have in mind that since we were so quick with Macedonia, we've set a new precedent. With Swaziland, if this precedent is ignored, it looks like double standards for no good reason, and if it's followed, then we are rather undermining our common name policy. Personally, I don't care what these places are called, but the thrust of my comment is perhaps we need to more broadly revisit the common name policy to avoid this kind of ambiguity in future? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
It is also not clear what will be the basis for a move in "a year or two". If other websites are, for the most part, using the new name already, what will change to enable us to move the article? Ground Zero (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think we ought to be careful with trying to uncover unmerited favor where no such favor is intended. As stated elsewhere, there is a difference between the Macedonia page move and this discussion. In the case of Macedonia, consensus was simply to add the word "North" in front of the name, but in this case, we're taking an Anglicized-sounding name and turning it into something that sounds strange to the English speaker, on the say-so of a national leader who has a poor record for his actions in his own country. But, I agree, the common name policy should be revisited.

It would be sensible to set a date, like the first of a particular month this year or the next, when we commit ourselves to revisiting this issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The argument for change is not based on the say-so of the ruler, but on common use, which is, as demonstrated by the many examples listed above and in the Wikipedia discussion, now strongly on favour of the new name. Ground Zero (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
But outside of Wikipedia and other websites, is it in common use? With ordinary travelers? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: I strongly disagree with the idea that we should base our naming conventions on what we think of a given country's government. You keep saying we should revisit the issue later, but you haven't said what we should be waiting for. Most people online seem to have switched to the new name—what could be different in a year that would cause you to change your mind? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Easy:
  1. I'm not saying that naming conventions should be based on the government. But it's an important, relevant factor. It only makes sense that a country that does a good job of following the highest standards on human rights, etc., is one we would trust most, compared to governments that don't. When large countries decide to recognize a smaller country or not, like in the case of South Sudan, national governments and their human rights abuses are a major concern.
  2. If we wait a year, it will probably be much clearer which name, "Swaziland" or "Eswatini", is more common, so we can make a better judgment then. I see nothing wrong in waiting, and therefore, patience. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
In short, I never said that we should base our naming conventions on a country's government. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
A country's human rights record has nothing at all to do with our naming conventions. They are based on common use only. We don't have any good measure of what travellers are saying. What new information will we have on one year's time? What will change? Delay for delay's sake seems like a bad policy. Ground Zero (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support moving to whichever name is in most common use, which seems to be Eswatini at the moment. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ground Zero: Looking at it another way, perhaps we shouldn't move the page until we know what travelers are saying. It shouldn't be impossible to figure out. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • SelfieCity: A precedent would be that presumably, during the period when the grotesque autocrat, self-styled Emperor Bokassa, ruled what had been the Central African Republic, we presumably would have changed the name of the article to Central African Empire, then changed it back after that nightmare passed from history. If in the future, some new ruler changes the name of the former Swaziland back, or to something else, we can change the article's name again, if the new (or new-old) name gets into common use in English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I see. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have trolled through the 20 most recent discussions in the TripAdvisor Eswatini Forum counting only contributions made by posters to those discussions on the last year. I found 9 posters who used Eswatini, 8 posters who used Swaziland, and 2 who used both. I have counted each person only once, and not counted the number of posts. So there is a slightly the advantage to the new name. And there are all of the websites mentioned. And there is still no indication from those opposing the change just what would be sufficient proof to justify a change. And still no evidence provided that Swaziland is the most common usage in 2019 beyond "well, I haven't really heard anyone using the new name". The fact is that this is a small country that few people talk about. Those who are talking about it are switching to the new name. It is time for Wikivoyage to catch up. Our small group of regular contributors here are not going to be more knowledgeable about this than the interwebs. Ground Zero (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Waiting to see which term ultimately won out among general usage was the right thing to do, IMO, rather than changing the article's name immediately after the announcement. But yes, at this time I think we need to move the page to its new name. Regarding Eswatini vs. eSwatini, I'm happy to defer to consensus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No new comments in more than a week, and overall there's now clear support for moving, despite one or two dissenters. I'll move the page to Eswatini. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Referring to Eswatini on other pages[edit]

As the name change is fairly recent and a significant number of other travel sources have not made the move yet, I think that we should use both names on all other pages when referring to the country. I suggest that in most cases we use Eswatini (Swaziland), except in articles on historical travel where Swaziland (Eswatini) would be better. A total of 89 pages link here, but ignoring user and talk pages, it is about 50 pages to change.AlasdairW (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably right, although I'm not sure we need italics in the second choice. Just
Swaziland (Eswatini)
or
Eswatini (Swaziland)
seems fine. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe - I used italics so that it was like the alternative name in listings, not like the region disambiguator - so nobody though that there was also Eswatini (Somewhere-else). AlasdairW (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we should use italics, but I like putting the alternate name in parentheses for now. Swaziland is now the alternate name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Putting the other name in parentheses seems reasonable to me, with a couple of exceptions. In the long lists of nationalities in other countries' "Get in" sections, I think it's fine to just say "Eswatini", because citizens of the country looking for visa information will surely be aware of its new name. And for destinations within Eswatini (like Mbabane) I'm not sure if it's necessary – at most, it should be fine to use the parenthetical on the first mention in those articles, and then just use "Eswatini" afterwards. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, and one more thing: if Eswatini is mentioned multiple times in article, I think the parentheses like
Eswatini (Swaziland)
should only be used the first time Eswatini is mentioned. Every time after that, just one name needs to be mentioned. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
As a general principle I agree, but I think it's fine to use our best judgement on a case-by-case basis. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that also. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Name for the people[edit]

What are the people of Eswatini/Swaziland now called? If there will now be two names, should we do the same principle as used above for the name of the country? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The demonym "Swazi" continues to be used by sources that have long switched to "Eswatini" (such as Wikipedia and the Eswatini tourism website), so I'd say we're safe using it. The alternative demonym "Swati" also existed before the name change and continues to exist. I don't think this requires any action on our part. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Currency, time and spelling conventions[edit]

Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know. Ground Zero (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Formatting and language conventions

For articles about Eswatini, please use the 24-hour clock to show times, e.g. 09:00-12:00 and 18:00-00:00.

Please show prices in this format: E100, and not SZL100. (For 1 lilangeni, use "L1".)

Please use British spelling.