Talk:Eswatini

Call for editors to collaborate on a new African history Wikiproject

All editors with a specific interest in African history are invited to help start a new African history Wikiproject. This is not a substitute for the Africa Wikiproject, but editors with a historian's perspective on African history articles (as opposed to a general interest in Africa) would collaborate on improving the quality of African history on Wikipedia. For more details click here or here here.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Swaziland. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pambazuka.net/en/category/features/87402/print
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416082843/http://eisa.org.za/WEP/swa3.htm to http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/swa3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227055747/http://www.content.eisa.org.za/old-page/swaziland-tinkhundla-electoral-system to http://www.content.eisa.org.za/old-page/swaziland-tinkhundla-electoral-system
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416062059/http://eisa.org.za/WEP/swatinkundla.htm to http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/swatinkundla.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416090129/http://eisa.org.za/WEP/swa4.htm to http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/swa4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923204654/http://www.clgf.org.uk/userfiles/1/files/Swaziland%20local%20government%20profile%202011-12.pdf to http://www.clgf.org.uk/userfiles/1/files/Swaziland%20local%20government%20profile%202011-12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715092635/http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_SWZ.html to http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_SWZ.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521105240/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/swaziland.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/swaziland.htm

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) 23:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

IMF programme

The following line is inaccurate: "Swaziland is not poor enough to merit an IMF program" there is no maximum income for having an IMF programme, Greece currently has one, and so have many upper-middle income countries in the past (Korea, Brazil etc). I would suggest that I just remove this line, unless anyone objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.210.196 (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2018

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: clearly, this discussion will not result in a consensus to move the page as proposed at this time. Wikipedia does not necessarily use official titles (WP:OFFICIAL). If reliable sources begin to use "eSwatini" and there is a clear shift in common usage (WP:COMMONNAME), it may be worth revisiting this, but only after those shifts take place. Dekimasuよ! 10:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Swaziland → eSwatini – Swaziland has changed their name to eSwatini. As a result of this name change, the article on the country should be changed to eSwatini with a redirect from Swaziland. - Emil Sayahi (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this name change recognized by other nations?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω 16:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The King of Swaziland is an absolute monarch, this decision has been speculated for some time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.93.5 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  Claims that the king determines the Wikipedia title requires several violations of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTHESIS to get there: first, an unsubstantiated claim that, because the country is an absolute monarchy, that there's no further legal process to promulgating acts in that country; second, that because an official announcement says so, that anyone outside of Swaziland, or even anyone inside Swaziland that isn't under pressure, is going to use it; and third, a totally imagined theory that Wikipedia is based on wishes or future (even allegedly-imminent) common use rather than current common use. --Closeapple (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Until we are sure that this name is internationally recognized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not active enough to vote, but international recognition of a name shouldn't really be a reason to oppose. A country's name is more-or-less an internal matter, and even in cases such as Republic of Macedonia, where there are disputes, Wikipedia's used the self-declared name. Mnmazur (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME; similar situation arose with the Czech Republic/Czechia recently ⇒ Chris0282 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with Knowledgekid87. Name still needs to be accepted by the community and at this stage we're unsure how the English language name for the country will reflect this, "Deutschland" gets called "Germany" for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypherzero0 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unlike Germany, Swaziland/eSwati has English as one of its official languages. This comparison cripples. Steinbach (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain - I believe it is prudent to note that Swaziland is an absolute monarchy (diarchy, eh) so the King *is* the State to an extent. I see both perspectives having weight and currently the situation is murky. I would like to see international reactions to this news.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω 17:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above & COMMONNAME, Might get picked up internationally as eSwatini but for now atleast it should remain at Swaziland. –Davey2010^Talk 17:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per COMMONNAME. New names don't necessarily catch on (e.g. Czechia). Number 57 17:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This is not too dissimilar from the cases with Kiev ("Kyiv") and Czech Republic ("Czechia"). SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain: On the one hand, I feel Wikipedia should use common/vernacular English names when they are not confusing or inherently offensive. That would mean "Swaziland". On the other hand, this is not what the English Wikipedia usually does. We have Czech Republic, Belarus, and Côte d'Ivoire rather than Czechia, Belorussia, and Ivory Coast. That's a very strong case for "eSwatini". In case of doubt: don't change. Let's monitor closely how its usage will evolve and then vote again in a year or so. Steinbach (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, we actually use "Ivory Coast" as the page name, and not "Côte d'Ivoire", but I agree with your point. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, it was Côte d'Ivoire when I last checked. :) Steinbach (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Abstain/Oppose for now per reasons listed above by Steinbach and others. Let's come back to this in around a year. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. If eSwatini becomes commonly accepted in English language media then we should change the name then. In the meantime the mention in the opening paragraph and the redirect from eSwatini are sufficient. DM Andy (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Michael (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and also WP:NOTNEWS. Wait to see other countries and official entities recognize this name in English before moving. Oren0 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain and wait to see what happens in common English usage, as per e.g. Burma and Myanmar. Dreigorich (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONAME. It might end up being another case of czechia, where the "official name" is never widely used. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose until International consensus is reached. It's too early yet. Zerbey (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - with qualifications. The example most commonly cited here is Czechia, which has never caught on as the name of the Czech Republic, but more germane examples are Burkina Faso and Myanmar, which were unilaterally-imposed name changes for Upper Volta and Burma. These countries' names were changed more or less immediately in the popular press. The Czech Republic might be a bit different because as a member of the European Union and NATO, it might be more familiar to a broader swath of English speakers, and hence the name might have more inertia. It could well be appropriate to keep the old name for a short period, but it certainly should be reviewed much, much sooner than a year. Illexsquid (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, Wikipedia did not adopt Myanmar until August 2015, more than 26 years after the name change was officially announced. Kahastok talk 21:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That seems a compelling reason for Wikipedia to avoid being behind the curve this time :-0 Stub Mandrel (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose until and unless it can be demonstrated that the new name is also the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Kahastok talk 21:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support and also, strongly agree with Illexsquid, please sooner than a year. WP is a living resource, in contrast to old school encyclopedia books. Also, the former(current) name is the colonial name, and if the country is changing it to the pre-colonial name, the change should be respected. Also, waiting for adoption among (essentially)colonial media outlets seems like a standard prone to bias. alisonjo2786 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support It seems no-one has gone beyond the news reports and actually visited the government website and read the king's speech. IMHO countries have a right to have a name in their language rather than an English one. Come to think of it when will the Wales page on wikipedia become a redirect to Cymru rather than the other way around? Stub Mandrel (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  I certainly went to the website: You're talking about the one that says "the Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland" right across the top, right? Where is the speech? --Closeapple (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:WIAN, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:RECENTISM. Even the jump-the-gun intro admits to "commonly and formerly known as Swaziland". Not even the website of the Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland uses eSwatini (as of 2018-04-19). The king's announcement notwithstanding, I've seen absolutely no source other than the king himself, not even its own government, that uses "eSwatini" as the habitual name for this place. Even yesterday's news sources mention that the king has been using "eSwatini" for a while now and it didn't catch on yet. --Closeapple (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral I can see another "Cote d'Ivoire" situation happening here. Yes, COMMONNAME is important, yet also is accuracy, and Wikipedia would not be accurate if carrying on the Anglo-centric naming of this article. HOWEVER I understand the importance of COMMONNAME for exactly these circumstances. Maybe the lede could be rewritten so the "new" name is the first emboldened term? doktorb _words^deeds 22:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• It is way too soon to be having this discussion. Per WP:RECENTISM, we should not react so drastically to breaking news or recent events. We should wait to see how the news sources, nations, and international organizations are addressing this, per WP:COMMONNAME. Although Swaziland is still in common usage today (heck, even http://www.gov.sz/ still uses "Swaziland"), that could change in 7 days when this discussion is supposed to end. Therefore, I would not be comfortable with making a decision at this time. Oppose for now, but reconsider after an appropriate period of time has passed. Edge3 (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support I guess it's okay to hold off until the spelling is standardized, presumably not to start with a lowercase e. However, if that is what Swazis, or even just the king wants, so be it. Mirza Ahmed (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Until (and unless!) eSwatini becomes common usage in English, it remains Swaziland. — D. Wo. 23:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

weak oppose for now Citing the precedence of WP's Burma to Myanmar move it should happen at some point but wait for UN/AU recognition (Swaziland can always be forwarded).Lihaas (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support for reasons already stated by Stub Mandrel, Alisonjo2786 and Illexsquid. Rariteh (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. At this point we don't have any examples of reliable sources using "eSwatini" in articles not about the name change, let alone any evidence that common usage has changed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia articles constantly change to become more up to date, eSwati is the up to date name for the country formerly known as Swaziland. Bobbbcat (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support The common theme for opposition here seems to be WP:COMMONNAME, which I think is a stunningly unsuitable policy to enforce when it comes to the official names of countries. It is not up to Wikipedia or "reliable sources" (what does this even mean? Surely the government of a nation should be a reliable source on a name change for that country?) to determine what a sovereign nation gets to call itself, and Wikipedia policies are neither infallible nor always right or sensible; at least the examples cited like Czechia and Belorussia are still recognizably the same name as the nations' Anglicized/older names- Swaziland and eSwatini are not. As others have also pointed out, what is the point in being a digital encyclopedia in the information age if we can't update these articles to change with the times? What difference is there between Wiki and a printed encyclopedia that must wait years for republishing to reflect any changes?
• Support Wikipedia is often frustratingly slow to pick up name changes. Who decides what's common use? People on the internet? If news articles and almanacs already will be using the new name, why not switch it now? This is an encyclopedia after all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.233.122.234 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait for a proper decree or whatever is published, then change the name.- ක - (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• comment how about considering when, and if, their TLD, .sz, is changed? (mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:787F:233D:9DB0:A673 (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia follows instead of leads. This is a very recent change, and change takes time. The government's website still refers to it as Swaziland. While I absolutely support the name change in principle, it is still too soon. I would like to see official international organisations use the name before we make a full switch, much less the government's website. Also, we do not always use the shortened official name of the country as the main page (evidenced by Ivory Coast or East Timor). SportingFlyer talk 02:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm personally very conservative on name changes unless they are clearly not matters of translation and this is entirely a matter of translation..."eSwatini" is Swazi for Swaziland.While Upper Volta changed its name to an entirely different name ("Burkina Faso" refers to the people,not a part of a river basin),Ivory Coast,East Timor,Burma,and now Swaziland have basically asked English-speakers not to use English,which is beyond their authority.I am more extreme than Wikiconsensus (I consider referring to Peking as "Beijing" akin to calling Naples "Napoli" or Germany "Deutschland" as English words) but I have to register a voice.Native-language names should be noted,but not defined as English-language names.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Swaziland remains the common name (in English) for this country, just like Ivory Coast is the common English name for "Côte d'Ivoire". English speakers, not foreign kings, determine how nations are called in English. Also, since eSwatini translates to "land of the Swazis", it is practically synonymous with "Swaziland". —General534 (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose In line with previous objections Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Oh gosh, if the supreme leader in Budapest grasps that, you would have to change every mention of Hungary to Magyarország because Magyars are of course not to be mistaken for Huns. --Pakeha (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the reasons above – I'm also slightly frustrated by how slow Wikipedia is to promulgate official changes in naming and terminology. —Nightstallion
• Oppose suggested rename I oppose the renaming of it to simply "eSwatini" if it is to be renamed at some point then it should be renamed to "Kingdom of eSwatini" however as it stands, it is unlikely to be renamed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose & Depose. Tiny unimportant country unlikely to have sufficient military resources to defend against a Wikipedia-led coup. Oppose name change, overthrow current government/ruling body and instill WP:DEMOCRACY to ensure current name is kept. 125.239.173.127 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We use the most common English name see Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, and East Timor, They have different official names than what Wikipedia uses Abote2 (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This change is simply too soon. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I am afraid other nations, even South Africa where I live, will take a very long time to adjust to this name. Readers will feel they are at the incorrect page. I feel changes to the infobox, which have been done already, are appropriate – however, change to the article title is too soon as Swaziland is WP:COMMONNAME. -- Waddie96 (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As of now most media still refers to it as Swaziland - see back in maybe a year, if they start calling it "ESwatini" instead. Juxlos (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Wait until we have enough time to assess what reliable sources do. It's fine to revisit this issue in some reasonable amount of time when we can see if reliable sources start calling it by its new name or not. It's just too early to tell. --Jayron32 10:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Jumping the gun with the name change

Someone has gone and replaced all instances of "Swaziland" in the article with the new official name "eSwatini". I think this is considerably too soon and I'm requesting someone to reverse this change. It can be reapplied once the name becomes the common name (WP:COMMONNAME). SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Undone as my changes also change cites. –Davey2010^Talk 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you eliminated *all* references to eSwatini? It probably needs one bold reference near the beginning. EuroAgurbash (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Something like, "officially the kingdom of eSwatini or something to that effect. ThirdDolphin (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to reverse the change myself now by using an older revision and to add a compromise into the top section. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to reverse the change as well. Now it's back to normal in mostly saying Swaziland, but mentioning this new alternate name in the lead for now. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my revert of this: it also changed the mentions of the name actually being changed as well as the new official name (both in English and Swati) and such, which is I believe it was a net negative. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A problem now seems to be editors oblivious to the conversation held here - if this keeps happening, the page might need some form of protection. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Surjection:: Shoot, sorry about messing it up. My bad. Just trying to reverse the "replace all Swaziland with eSwatini" change. (Like, unless this discussion reaches a consensus to change everything to "eSwatini", it might not be best to have everything say eSwatini. For now, it's an alternate name that it's not commonly known by yet. Like, the North Korea article uses "North Korea" a lot instead of "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" everywhere.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Paintspot:: Yeah, but KCNA uses both “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” and “North Korea”. Rariteh (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I read KCNA fairly regularly and I don't think I've ever seen them call themselves "North Korea". Maybe very rarely in certain contexts. But they usually say "DPRK", and sometimes just "Korea". They actually don't like the name "North Korea" and they don't encourage it because they don't recognize the division of the country as legitimate and don't want to encourage the idea that Korea is two countries. Kawada Kira (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have now requested page protection via WP:RFP. I cannot keep reverting further. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As a note, this revision has the country names mostly correct according to the current consensus - eSwatini should only appear in official names, mentions of the name change and the top section (but nowhere else, such as the common_name on the country infobox). SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the article should start with the new name until, and only if, the article name is moved. I think it's just wholly inconsistent the way it looks now. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have semi-protected the article for 1 week; please continue discussing the name change here. I've also removed the {{update}} maintenance tag because I felt it might mislead users inclined to changing the name throughout the article into doing so. Mz7 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

At what point does the name change become 'official' the King's decree is on the official Swaziland Government website [[1]] [[2]]. May I strongly suggest that once the website has changed the name, Wikipedia should follow suit. Also the direct link to the King's speech should take precedence over the BBC report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stub Mandrel (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Once everyone refers to it as “ESwatini” instead of Swaziland - the same reason it’s North Korea instead of DPRK. Maybe a few months at the earliest. Juxlos (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe the difference in this case is even I am not sure how to pronounce the new name. Related to that, there should be an IPA in English and Swazi in the lede.-Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω 23:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The name change became "official" immediately upon the King's decree. Swaziland's own name for itself is now "Kingdom of eSwatini". However, you seem to be confusing "official name" with "name of the Wikipedia page". These are not the same thing. It is conceivable that the official name will become commonly used in English in just a few months, and the page would then be moved. It is also conceivable that the name change may never become common in English usage, and the page would then not be moved. --Khajidha (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think User:Tariqabjotus decision to not move Burma --> Myanmar in 2012 is a good read. And Relevant. [3] --LaserLegs (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The example of North Korea is misleading, the DPRK is the official long name not the short hand, it would be comparable to the Kingdom of eSwatini rather than eSwatini. I fail to see how it is too soon to change the name given the decree has already been made by the absolute monarch of said country. 2A02:C7F:7212:4400:D253:49FF:FE99:A4E7 (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What about the example of Greece? The name of the article should reflect how the country is referred to in English language and the English language doesn't change by a decision of a monarch. Džuris (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

eSwatini or Eswatini?

In Germanic languages, capital letters are not used in the centre of words. Should the new name be written Eswatini rather than eSwatini? I believe it should. DG (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The word itself is in the Swazi language and is the official name for the country, the correct format is eSwatini while those outside of the country will likely continue to refer to it as Swaziland so there's no need for the change. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Should the name "eSwatini" become official and the common name, we'll see how the capitalization holds. I think there will be an inevitable shift to "Eswatini" in usage from the original "eSwatini". Botswana is a precedent, from a prefix Bo- + Tswana, as is Lesotho. Dreigorich (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not true at all. English is a germanic language and we have names like McDonalds McRobert etc I know hundreds of people with names that have capital letters in the middle of them (although i know they probably originate from Gaelic languages originally)

We also have things like iPad and iPhone. Sure, those are brand names, but I haven't seen much tendency to render them as Iphone and Ipad for Germanic language reasons.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

M(a)c- is a Celtic prefix connected to a term for "ancestor" and it still starts with a capital latter itself. Also I have rarely seen a lack of a subsequent capital, there are some "Macdonalds"for instance. If "Eswatini" becomes common Anglicized usage then that is perfectly acceptable.-Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω 14:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Botswana and Lesotho aren't comparable: Sotho and Tswana capitalisation conventions are different from those of the Nguni languages, like Swati. And the South African province of KwaZulu-Natal (and before that the Bantustan of KwaZulu provide precedent for a 'non-standard' capitalisation being accepted in English for what is, after all, a loan word. 105.8.5.41 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

"eSwatini" and variations in Swazilander English dialect?

Here is a point to pay attention to perhaps as time moves along considering the name of this Kingdom: Considering that English is a co-official language of this nation as is with South Africa, Botswana, etc.in this region of former British influence, should we see if "eSwatini"takes particular precedence over "Swaziland" in the dialect of the country and that region of Southern Africa in general? I am not familiar with the English of Swazilanders (and only know a little of South African English), but maybe this is also worth taking note of. Maybe there is no difference or a total shift, or maybe it shouldn't be considered? What do you think?-Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω 14:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Swaziland still the most common name for this country??

This article is still titled Swaziland, meaning that this must still be the most common name for the country. What's wrong here?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing. The announcement was just made. There is no way thay references to the country (not just the name change) are using eSwatini yet. --Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean, Wikipedia is supposed to use the most common name even if dated?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean that right now the only usage of "eSwatini" is stories saying "Swaziland is now eSwatini". No one is wrotimg about elections in eSwatini. Or earthquakes in eSwatini. Or construction projects in eSwatini. When the proponderance of sources switch we will switch. --Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)