Talk:Mookgophong

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

Name Change[edit]

I've just returned from a visit to Naboomspruit/Mookgophong, and the name change appears to be final now. Road signs outside the town have been updated, probably because this is done by the provincial authorities. Signs inside the town still mostly use the old Afrikaans name. Can anyone confirm that the name change has indeed been approved, so that the article can be updated with the correct information?

--fugue 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was renamed oficially Mookgophong on 24 November 2006 [1]) Park3r (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Naboomspruit is more commonly used, let's bring the Derry (official name Londonderry) scene back in.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

Unlike German wikipedia (which has HK), there is no source if Naboomspruit or Mookgopong is more common among Afrikaans or English people. So I guess one (although unreliable) reference is google search, these are the results --Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans google search

  • Naboomspruit : 155,000 results
  • Mookgopong : 22,100 results (Municipality included)
  • Mookgophong : 33,200 results (Municipality included)


English goog search

  • Naboomspruit : 153,000 results
  • Mookgopong : 21,800 results (Municipality included)
  • Mookgophong : 32,900 results (Municipality included)

Example

Direct text from article: Derry

Despite the official name, the city is more usually known as simply Derry, which is an anglicisation of the old Irish Daire, which in modern Irish is spelt Doire... --Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct text from article: Bangalore (OFFICIAL NAME SINCE 2005: Bengaluru)

On 11 December 2005, the Government of Karnataka announced that it had accepted a proposal by Jnanpith Award winner U. R. Ananthamurthy to rename Bangalore to Bengaluru.[10] On 27 September 2006, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) passed a resolution to implement the proposed name change,[11] which was accepted by the Government of Karnataka and it was decided to officially implement the name change from 1 November 2006.[12][13] --Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct text from article: Mysore (OFFICIAL ENGLISH NAME: Mysuru)

In December 2005, the Government of Karnataka announced its intention to change the English name of the city to Mysuru.[4] This has been approved by the Government of India but the necessary formalities to incorporate the name change are yet to be completed.[5]

None of this is particularly relevant. Firstly, Wikipedia accepts the name change at Derry. As a compromise (it's a very emotive issue to both Nationalists and Unionists in Northern Ireland), Wikipedia accepted that the city should be named Derry, and the county named County Londonderry. The official name of the city is Derry, and that is what Wikipedia uses. Secondly, the examples of Bangalore and Mysore are hardly applicable as the name change formalities have not yet been completed (Indian bureaucracy moves very, very, very slowly!). The official English names remain Bangalore and Mysore for the time being, much to the frustration of the State Government of Karnataka.
On English Wikipedia we really couldn't care less what an Afrikaans Google search produces. That is relevant to the Afrikaans Wikipedia, not to the English Wikipedia. An English Google search is only relevant for hits for the period after the name change, and even then is not the best method of determining useage. What we are interested in is use in South African English prose for the period since the name change (South African because national varieties of English come into play).
So, to get the ball rolling, some examples:
Technology introduced by the company in partnership with GreenFuel Technologies and Green Star Products of the US, in Mookgopong in Limpopo, involves the growing of algae as feedstock for biofuels production. Biodiesel, bioethanol and biogas can be produced from the algae. from Oilgae
Mookgopong (Naboomspruit) is a charming town at the foot of the Swaershoek Mountains surrounded by peaceful nature reserves and steaming hot springs. The mellow Bushveld climate and attractive resorts in the area attract many holidaymakers. from Encounter South Africa
The Farm is located just outside Mookgopong (formerly Naboomspruit) in the Northern Province of South Africa. The farm is approximately 90 minutes to the north of Pretoria and a 2-hour drive from Johannesburg. from Africa Game Farm Estates
Situated in a Malaria free area, close to Mookgopong (previously Naboomspruit) in the heart of the Limpopo Province, Nuanetzi Game Lodge offers true peace and tranquility only a stone's throw away from everyday life. from Nuanetzi Game Lodge
Take the N1 North Highway from Pretoria to Polokwane (Pietersburg). Keep on the N1 through the Carousel and Kranskop Tollgates. Travel a further 32km on the N1. Take the Mookgopong (Naboomspruit) R101A off ramp/exit (Route 289). Drive 8km to Mookgopong. Turn left at the second traffic light in town centre (R520) into Nelson Mandela Street. from Entabeni Safari Conservancy
The police have arrested two Zimbabwians, who where illegally in the country, for the brutal attack on an elderly couple in Mookgopong (Naboomspruit). from South African Police Service
Lying at the foot of the Swaershoek Mountains is Mookgopong, previously called Naboomspruit after the famous Naboom tree, a huge candelabra tree that grows on the banks of a nearby stream, The town developed with thanks to the discovery of minerals in the early 1900’s and is surrounded by nature reserves and hot springs. from Bundox Bush Camp
Nhlanguleni Game Farm is located outside Mookgopong (formerly Naboomspruit) in the Limpopo Province, and about 90 minutes to the north of Pretoria and a 2 hours drive from Johannesburg. from I Lead Online
Skinsmoke (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody really uses those changed politically-inspired fantasy names. --41.150.112.50 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 January 2015[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus. Number 57 20:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Mookgophong → Naboomspruit – Eight years after it was officially renamed, Naboomspruit remains the most common name for the town. As far as I can tell, this is the only South African town for which the article's title is not also the common name. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It seems clear that the move [2] was in error, and should be reversed. (Note that a subsequent move changed the spelling to Mookgophong but that is not relevant here.) Andrewa (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose. If you can prove that the municipality, the city itself, news forecasts or road maps still refer to it as Naboomspruit then I will support a move. Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that necessary? We have evidence above that it remains the most common name for the town. In the absence of other evidence we should simply accept what we have. On the other hand if you have evidence that news forecasts or road maps refer to it by another name, you should produce it. What name the municipality, the city itself use is not all that relevant, it's already noted above that the town has been officially renamed eight years ago, but our policy is not to automatically adopt the official name (much to the surprise of many, but for good reasons). Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's necessary. I understand how COMMONNAME wiki policy works but common name should only be used if an overwhelming majority use the unofficial name. I hate that the town was renamed but I've faced the facts and Google Maps, the South African census 2011, SABC (22 results vs. 10 for naboomspruit, most of which are old). I also have a problem with the inconsistency if this gets reverted. Most Limpopo towns were renamed in the 2000s, some (Louis Trichardt, Vaalwater) were reverted officially and remain on their respective pages while the rest have been moved because the new name is also common. I have a problem with Naboomspruit because every other town renamed in Limpopo has been moved. Besides, Mookgophong is the official name and will probably stay, what is the point in moving the article if in a few years Mookgophong will become commonplace anyway? Are we not just delaying the inevitable? I'm still undecided but I'm starting to disagree with the proposed move because there is no evidence that Naboomspruit is still in use. Bezuidenhout (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also I have a road map of SA from 2010 and it clearly states the town as Mookgophong (Naboomspruit) the same way it refers to Mokopane (Potgietersrus). Similarly I went to SA in 2010 and all signs referred to the town as Mookgophong. Bezuidenhout (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the details of the evidence you have. It is relevant, but both reflect the official rather than the common name, while the evidence provided by nom [3] relates to common usage, and should therefore be preferred as more relevant in terms of article naming policy. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of points here, but no of course.
common name should only be used if an overwhelming majority use the unofficial name is not supported by policy, it's a matter of degree perhaps but this clearly goes beyond what the policy states. I hate that the town was renamed is not relevant at all. I also have a problem with the inconsistency if this gets reverted again seems to be personal opinion, but see below.
Mookgophong is the official name and will probably stay, what is the point in moving the article if in a few years Mookgophong will become commonplace anyway? Are we not just delaying the inevitable? violates WP:BALL. We should go with the common usage as it now exists.
The consistency argument is the only one that has any support in policy or guidelines. But this cuts both ways. Yes, we could consistently follow official usage rather than common, but we have chosen to consistently follow common usage. In this case it seems we can't do both, so common usage wins. Andrewa (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look up you can see I've had this argument and discussion many a times (check out the other renamed cities) so I know what I'm getting myself into. There has been a shift in Limpopo town names and in SA the media, the people and the official authorities use Mookgophong. I have given you all these facts and information yet you're riding your entire argument along this one google trend. You can't let google trends dictate where a page lies. There is already a re-direct so I don't understand why you're so hasty to rename the article? Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean for crying out loud even Afrikaans media are using the new name (see netwerk.co.za) Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Readers will wonder why cities on the same road have been moved to their new names while Naboomspruit remains despite being officially renamed? And you can put in a link saying that "the former name is more common according to google trends" but frankly when the people, media and official authorities/signs/billboards (I sound like a gramophone) use the new name then I don't see the point in moving it, ESPECIALLY if the new name has been finalised (to counter your crystal ball policy), they have re-iterated that the new name is here to stay. Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, you could argue there is a similar situation with the city of Thiruvananthapuram (formerly Trivandrum). According to your holy google trend the former name is more common but they have opted for the newer name because not only is it official but in USE. Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strange stringing, you seem to be replying to yourself, see WP:THREAD. See below for my reply to all the above posts. Andrewa (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, some relevant points but so much of this is opinion contrary to current policy and guidelines that I don't think it's worth my time to try to sort it out.
I doubt any of the many implied changes to our current guidelines etc will gather support, and at first glance I think I'd oppose them all. The current guidelines represent a great deal of work and resulting consensus. But you can try.
Or it's valid to invoke WP:IAR and propose or support an RM that doesn't fit current guidelines etc, but you need to cite the ones that you wish to ignore and then make a case for doing so. Otherwise why have them? Andrewa (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the definition of "most common," and what is the relevant reference population? Using Google search frequency as a proxy seems distinctly problematic, since access to the internet will be sharply skewed away from the majority of the local population, won't it? But is it the local population that is the reference population? As far as Google goes, I note that a search on Naboomspruit generates "about 359,000 pages" while Mookgophong generates "about 328,000 pages." To me that seems to reflect an evenness among web page and content creators. To me the arguments from maps and various official and quasi-official uses support using Mookgophong. Over time it will become increasingly common. In Swaziland nobody calls Manzini Bremersdorp any more, nor Nhlangano Goedgegun -- I only know the older Afrikaans names because I'm a historian.
To me it looks like the appropriate thing would be to add a redirect link from an empty Naboomspruit page to the Mookgophong article. Chris Lowe (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose Ultimately, our purpose is to serve readers. Either title will help them find it as long as redirects exist, but going forward, the current name is what the town will be known by. Naboomspruit seems almost like an endonym to me (in America, the first result I got on Bing for Naboomspruit was an Afrikaans website!), but it's complicated in such a polyglot environment. Red Slash 01:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the google trend comparison, the new name is not getting any more common lately, and it's not a given that it will become the most common eventually, it's been 8 years since the town was renamed. Considering that the article is about a small town, the search volume is not even that small, we can certainly draw meaningful conclusions from it. To answer Chris Lowe, the proposition that some names are less represented on the internet than they are in the real world certainly rings true, but doesn't explain why Mokopane for example is known by the new name and Mookgophong/Naboomspruit isn't, the bias should affect both places in the same way.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mookgophong. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mookgophong&oldid=1204062348"