Jump to content

Talk:Dutywa

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutywa. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dutywa. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 January 2022

[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 moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dutywa → Idutywa – Article was boldly moved to the new name, but data suggests that the new name hasn't become predominant globally as required by WP:MPN, with ngrams showing three times as much use for the old name as the new, and Google Scholar showing twice as much (Idutywa, Dutywa). Recent news results are inconclusive. BilledMammal (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose Like almost every other move request you have made related to South Africa, there is no evidence backing up your claim here. These are all within the first few results. What is wrong with these sources? This insistence on ignoring reliable, English language sources is incredibly frustrating. Why do we spend so much time rehashing the same argument over and over again?
https://www.dispatchlive.co.za/news/2022-01-05-berlin-november-winners-cry-foul-after-not-being-paid/
https://www.businessinsider.co.za/most-dangerous-roads-in-south-africa-during-the-festive-season-2021-12
https://www.frieze.com/article/gabrielle-goliath-chorus-goodman-cape-town-2021-review
https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/local/mthathaexpress/digital-learning-tools-handed-over-to-dutywa-school-20210831
There is nothing wrong with these sources. Desertambition (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with them, but they don't demonstrate that Dutywa has become predominant in common global usage as required by MPN. What does demonstrate that Idutywa remains the WP:COMMONNAME is the usage shown by ngrams, and by the fact that in scholarly publications Idutywa is used twice as much as Dutywa. BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The bold move should be reverted unless there is evidence that the new name has come into common use, and on the evidence presented this has not happened. Andrewa (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the ngram shows the new name accelerating fast towards the old name, and in cases like this it is good to respect local usage, which appears to have shifted to omitting the I in recent years. Also, the "bold move" alluded to above took place 12 years ago, so I think it's fair to say that "Dutywa" is the established status quo at this point.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that WP:MPN requires global use, when we zoom in on the ngrams we see it has plateaued for the past ten years, and I noted the bold move to state that there isn't a previous consensus to refer to, rather than suggest that the current stable title is the proposed one. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. ngrams only goes until 2019. I don't see inconclusive new results; rather they appear heavily skewed towards Dutywa. A Google News search for the last month gives 8 results for Dutywa, and only 1 for Idutywa (which refers to the name of the town during the childhood of a public figure). Greenman (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same google search when this nomination was first opened gave different results; 7 for Idutywa and 29 for Dutywa. However, of those 29, 4 weren't in English, 5 were from a gaming news site where Call of Duty Warzone was returning for Dutywa, and 10 of the uses were identical, copied from the description of a stock picture, and so can't be counted as independent, leaving us 7 compared to 10, which I don't find conclusive given the low number of results. The results now give a different picture, but I don't believe we can rely on news sources to determine the common name, considering they seem to be inconsistent about which, if either, name they prefer. BilledMammal (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dutywa has been the official name for 18 years now--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As others have noted, we don't simply choose the official name but rather the one that is clearly more commonly used in English language sources. However, in cases of split usage where there isn't an overwhelmingly clear common name between an older name and an official one, and with clear trends in usage, it is more logical that we land on the official one. Given that a google news search from the past month is also showing me far more results for the current title than the proposed one, it seems a tough sell that we should change away from the official name. --Yaksar (let's chat) 23:47, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dutywa&oldid=1201700729"