Talk:Badplaas

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 12 February 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.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 17:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badplaas → eManzana – Town has been renamed for over 10 years. Reliable English language sources regularly use the new name. Any mention I have found of the old name was as a gentle reminder i.e. eManzana (formerly Badplaas)

https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/south-africa/2022-02-09-woman-shot-dead-in-robbery-at-shopping-centre/

https://www.enca.com/news/land-reform-sa-mpumalanga-farmers-receive-land

https://mg.co.za/news/2021-12-05-motsepes-mine-in-reparation-row/

https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2021-12-30-station-commander-killed-in-shootout-with-gang-members-in-mpumalanga/

https://www.farmersweekly.co.za/agri-business/empowerment/land-beneficiaries-20-year-struggle-for-government-help/

https://www.news24.com/news24/go/wathaba-next-weekend-20201001

https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/pregnant-woman-allegedly-raped-at-embuleni-hospital-in-mpumalanga/

https://mpumalanganews.co.za/greenfingers/ Desertambition (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; Badplaas remains the clear WP:COMMONNAME, per ngrams which shows no use for eManzana, Google News, which shows 213 results for Badplaas compared to 39 for eManzana, and Google Scholar, which shows 344 results for Badplaas compared to 19 for eManzana. BilledMammal (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain in more detail what the results are and post some recently published reliable sources using the name. It is hard to judge these results and I would ask that you provide more specific sources because ngrams can be misleading and vague. I have provided eight sources that use the new name. Desertambition (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is recommended that Ngrams be used as evidence in move discussions. Do you have specific concerns about its use here?

The results are a search engine test; it allows us to determine the ratio of Badplaas to eManzana across all reliable sources. This is preferable to providing specific examples as those can only tell us that the name is used, and not whether it is the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do have concerns because citing ngrams without any context can misrepresent what the data is actually showing. There can be reasons for the name popping up such as organization names, specific buildings that have yet to be renamed, etc etc. In addition, we should only take into account sources published after the name was changed. The data you used went back quite far. The sources I have provided show frequent usage of the new name in recently published, reliable English language media. I do not believe it is unreasonable to ask that you provide some specific counter examples if you're going to discount eight sources. Desertambition (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many recent, reliable sources using Badplaas would I need to provide to convince you to withdraw the request? BilledMammal (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well so far you have posted none so any would be a good start. The evidence seems to overwhelmingly point to eManzana being the correct name so I would like some reasoning as to why the sources I have provided are not being taken into account. Desertambition (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would twenty be sufficient? BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can explain the relevance of them over the sources I have provided then be my guest. However, you have yet to address why my sources are not relevant to the discussion and I would like some clarification on your reasoning. Desertambition (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, specific examples only tell us that the name is used, not whether it is the commonname. However, we are starting to repeat arguments, and from your responses I suspect that we will not make progress, so I will step back from the discussion. If you want specific examples, you can find many in the search engine tests posted above. BilledMammal (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No specific examples have been given yet. Desertambition (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current title appears to be the most common name in English sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand on that, I have provided eight recently published reliable sources using the name. Desertambition (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per BilledMamal. --Spekkios (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand on that @Spekkios:. You have not provided any argument and BilledMammal failed to prove the current name is not commonly used. How is just saying "google it" and citing ngrams without context reliable at all? Please explain in detail. Desertambition (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are wanting me to expand on. BilledMamal has shown that the common name is Badplaas by using ngrams, showing that news sites use it 213 times vs 39 times for the proposed name, etc, which is why I oppose the move per BilledMamal. --Spekkios (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spekkios: Actually BilledMammal didn't prove that at all. I have provided specific, reliable, recently published, English language sources using the new name. All I was asking them to do was provide specific examples proving their argument and they did not. You have not either. Nor has Rreagan007. If it is truly so overwhelming then it shouldn't be that difficult to link some of the articles. I did that and it seems necessary for clarity. I do not see why we have to just take their word for it when I have provided plenty of sources that say the exact opposite. I am really trying to understand your rationale here because it's not making sense to me. Desertambition (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You also did not consider timeliness at all, only sources after the name change should be considered. Desertambition (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the links BilledMamal provided. One shows that there are far more news articles using Badplaas than contain eManzana. If you want a specific example then click on one of the hundreds of articles that use Badplaas. Ngrams also shows that Badplaas is used far more. As for your comment "only sources after the name change should be considered": please see WP:NAMECHANGES. While extra weight should be given to sources written after the name change, 8 specific sources are not enough to outweigh the hundreds that use Badplaas. --Spekkios (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spekkios: Again, you haven't actually cited specific sources. eManzana is regularly used and I see no reason why we should keep the page here when the name has been changed for over a decade. Recent sources make it clear the new name is used in every official capacity and sometimes mentioned synonymously. I don't understand why it is so impossible to just link sources. Here are sources that have used the name just since this move request was made:

Vaccinate your pets against rabies

Hundreds of dogs and cats in Lothair near eManzana, in the Chief Albert Luthuli Local Municipality, received their free inoculations last Wednesday, February 16.

TAKE A LOOK | President Ramaphosa’s prized cattle head to auction again

President Ramaphosa is the biggest Ankole farmer in South Africa. His expansive Ankole heard, renowned for their massive horns and regal stature, occupy the 5,100-hectare farm near eManzana.

Leopard leaves man with scratch after bizarre camping incident in eManzana (This one was a few days before I posted but you get the point).

Hundreds of hectares for eManzana

These indicate that the correct name is being used extensively. Desertambition (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the links I provided for the sources. Google provides the actual articles, not just the number. --Spekkios (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spekkios: Your argument is "google it". That is not an argument based on existing WP:CRITERIA or any other policy. Desertambition (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did you obtain your 8 links if you didn't "google it"? --Spekkios (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:STONEWALLING and provide some actual sources. Desertambition (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said: I oppose this move as per BilledMamal. It's very standard to use Google and ngrams in that way as a benchmark for common names, especially on low-interest articles such as this one. I assumed you googled for your sources, which is exactly what BilledMamal has done. --Spekkios (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of those results are after the name change, so even if we only consider results from afterwards Badplaas is still the common name by a significant margin. BilledMammal (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of moving the discussion forward, here are a few examples: [1] (from Daily Maverick), [2] (from News24 (website)), [3] (from Independent Online (South Africa)). Colin M (talk) 18:50, 28 February 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.