Jump to content

Talk:East London, South Africa

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

Untitled

[edit]

Is Bisho really part of Buffalo City? I can't see any reference to this elsewhere... Nyh 09:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) No Bisho is not part of East London, however both settlements are in Buffalo City and are part of the same municpality. Quite a bit of development on precisely how South African local government is structured should be put up. I am attempting to get the process underway: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_African_Municipalities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Hjul (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There is an error in this article. The Xhosa for East London is Emonti, Not Imonti. The E- prefix indicates a place, whereas I- indicates an object. - ISS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.194 (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we've been through this on the Cape Town page. the e- prefix is a locative, and the i- prefix is simply the name. Imonti means East London, Emonti means "at, in, to East London" Joziboy 25 April 2006, 12:33 (UTC)

Argedy Arg, Local Government in S.A is a pain. Basically separate entities for S.A towns and cities and local government units are neccessary. I put together a list that was thankfully fixed up and put together in the List SA Municpalities page which forms the current shopping list of muncipality entries that need to be built (hopefully all with the same format). It would seem necessary to include the names (and references) of constituent settlements of municipalities in that municipality entry. Therefore Bisho should not be refered to in East London but should be included in the Buffalo City Local Municipality entry, which I have now done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Hjul (talk • contribs) 10:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed title to avoid confusion

[edit]

I changed the title to East London, South Africa to avoid confusion with East London, England. If you look at the "what links here" list for East London you will see several articles that incorrectly link there because editors assumed that the link would go to an article about the east end of London. Spylab 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created a disambiguation page about East London and redirect East London to there. Simply south 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this all leaves East London redirecting to East London (disambiguation), which should never be the case, and should have been changed as well. I also suspect that, encyclopaedically speaking, the South African city remains the primary meaning, even if a few erroneous links have been created. I shall move East London, South Africa back to East London, but will not content a move request to change the latter into a disambiguation page. Until then, the dablink at the top will suffice. --Stemonitis 12:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having done most of the disambiguation, I disagree with you. The number of links to the South African city and to the part of the English city was approximately equal. The move had been uncontested for a month. I've put a note up on requested moves. Sam Blacketer 13:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this move. I have periodically checked for links to East London and updated them to East London, England. I normally find quite a few have been added. East London in England is a very large area with a considerable number of places, people and things associated with it. MRSC • Talk 18:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the move. Regan123 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move. The South African city is probably the principla meaning, but not by enough to avoid the need for disambiguation. JPD (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been debated for five days with no-one contesting the proposed move, so I will implement it. Thanks to all who participated. Sam Blacketer 11:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the WP:RM read East London (disambiguation) --> East London? Simply south 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of terminological detail, I suppose. I phrased it as East London --> East London, South Africa because the location of articles rather than disambiguation pages felt like the more substantial change, although you're quite right that the move of the disambiguation page is also connected. However I can't myself move the disambiguation page because it needs administrator involvement. I was thinking about contacting one to get this done. At the moment the East London page is a redirect to East London (disambiguation). Sam Blacketer 12:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khusela MPokeli grade 10 f —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.45.137 (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Page Moved, by another editor. Station1 (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East London, South Africa → East London, Eastern Cape — Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#South Africa: "Only disambiguate towns where necessary; use "placename, province" where this is unambiguous." Relisted. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC) htonl (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. East London is not ambiguous within South Africa. The ambiguity is with East London. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point; but on the other hand the convention in effect does seem to be "Name, Province". I went on a sweep through all the subcategories of Category:Populated places in South Africa and East London was one of only three articles titled "Name, South Africa". And the vast majority of articles titled "Name, Province" are not ambiguous within South Africa. (Indeed, I think the only two placenames that were ambiguous within South Africa were Middelburg and Heidelberg.) - htonl (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The wording of the convention is not binding, so it shouldn't be read literally. Arguably it doesn't apply, since absent an ambiguity within South Africa the country-specific part of the guideline isn't engaged. WP:PRECISION suggests we should be as precise as necessary, and it's not necessary to go beyond the national level, particularly when East London is a nationally-important place. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed. While naming conventions are not binding in the same way that policy is, they should be adhered to unless there is good reason not to. The fact that East London is an important city is not relevant -- WP:PRECISION does not suggest otherwise. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In accordance with the naming convention for South Africa. It is irrelevant whether the city needs to be disambiguated within South Africa. For example, Scarborough, North Yorkshire does not need to be disambiguated from any other Scarboroughs in the United Kingdom, but from Scarborough, Ontario and the various Scarboroughs in the United States and Australia. The aim of the naming conventions is to give both editors and readers some idea where to look for the page in a consistent format. If they know that all other disambiguated settlements in South Africa are disambiguated by province, then they will tend to look for East London, Eastern Cape. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why East London?

[edit]

This article could use, I think, an explanation as to why it is called East London. Was there another settlement to its west that was called London, but which has since been encompassed by other settlements or diminished and disappeared? Or is it named this because it is, longitudinally, east of London, England? Why did the founders not just call it "London", like a dozen places in North America, Belize and Kiribati? GBC (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea why it is called that. I searched online about the history of East London, and the municipality and provinsial government don't say. I'm guessing it's called so because it's East of London, England, like you said, longitudinally. Unlike other 'West' and 'Easts' in South Africa (see Somerset East and Somerset West/ Aliwal North and Aliwal South (now called Mosselbaai)), this one doesn't have an opposite counterpart. Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting question. I am guessing it is named after the East London in England. All the other places in South Africa with a cardinal direction in their name that I'm aware of have the cardinal direction after the name rather than before. To me this implies that East London has always been the name, rather than having had "east" tacked on to avoid confusion with another place in South Africa. If it was originally just London and then needed to be distinguished from another South African London, they would surely have become London East and London West. None of the other places in South Africa named after towns in other countries have a cardinal direction to imply they are south or east of the original: Worcester, Malmesbury, Bethlehem, Berlin, Belfast, Ermelo, Middelburg(s) etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Dictionary of Southern African Place Names doesn't say, which to me is an indication that it may not be known at all. - htonl (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the most likely explanation is that it was named after the East End of London, where most of the London docks were situated, and which were at the time, a part of the largest and most busiest port in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but what about Stutterheim it is a small unprotected and unimportant to you as high people Imibongo (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

[edit]

There is no need for the hatnote ("For other uses...") at the top of this article. Hatnotes are for cases where a reader may have reached one article when they meant to reach another. There is no way that a reader would reach this article when they were actually looking for the London region. To somewhat paraphrase from WP:NAMB, "a reader who is following links within Wikipedia or using Wikipedia's own search engine would not have ended up at East London, Eastern Cape if one were looking for other places named East London". Hatnotes are not just to link together similarly-named articles, they are specifically for when redirection may be needed. - htonl (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East London, Eastern Cape. 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) 05:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 November 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: page moved by consensus. Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East London, Eastern Cape → East London, South Africa – In 2010 we moved this article the other way, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#South Africa, but the convention there has now changed; it now says "Where disambiguation is required, [[Placename, South Africa]] is used." htonl (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#South Africa seems quite clear and sensible. Greenman (talk) 13:49, 13 November 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.

Conclusion of East London

[edit]

conclusion of East London 41.116.236.193 (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_London,_South_Africa&oldid=1252173812"