Talk:KwaZulu-Natal

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

Capital of the Province[edit]

As of the ANC coming into power in the province, Pietermaritzburg is the sole capital. Below is a quote from the Premier, S'bu Ndebele's inauguration address, with a link to an online copy of the address, stating as such:

"In line with our election commitment, and the need for a single government that is not fragmented and disparate, Pietermaritzburg is both the legislative and executive capital of our province." [1]

Jcw69 reverted my changes to this effect in error (though has done a spectacular job of listing all the towns in the province by region :) ).

Some explanation of the history of this description (I think I put this in, but maybe it got taken out?) might be useful.

-kierano

PMB is the only capital. Wizzy 21:02, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I appologise, I far as I knew both Pmb and Ulundi shared capital status, but that was before last years elections and I never came across anything to the contrary until now. Thanks --Jcw69 07:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The same statement (that there are two capitals) is also in Provinces of South Africa, so you might want to change that if it's no longer the case. Nyh 07:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Corn[edit]

This page links to the disambiguation page Corn, but I'm not sure which sense is intended. Can you help? Thanks. — Pekinensis 21:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many of the whites are anglo-africans i.e english speaking whites? /Martin

Do you mean in South Africa as a whole or just in KZN? Approximately 15% of SA is white, and about 40% of those are home language English-speakers (the rest being Afrikaans). I would think the proportion would be higher in KZN. Joziboy 23 March 2006, 16:15 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Renaming?[edit]

Is there a reference for the claim that there are plans to rename KZN simply KwaZulu? I very much doubt it's true. Joziboy 23 April 2006, 13:46 (UTC)

Also, there doesn't seem to be an article on (the now defunct) Natal - if someone wants to start that? There's only this current page, and one about the Boer Republic of Natalia. But there are pages for all of the other old provinces (Cape Province, Orange Free State and Transvaal), so there should really be an article on the province of Natal. Joziboy 23 April 2006, 13:59 (UTC)
I've noticed that comment on renaming, and it's bugging me, too. I'm taking it out until someone can show substantiation. If anything, it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph.
I've been thinking about a Natal page, too. I have been doing some work lately on the history section on the Zulu page, much of which is intertwined with the history of Natal, both as a British colony and as a province. Maybe when I get time...-Kieran 09:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look at your Zulu history section - it's excellent! If you could do the Natal page that would be great. Joziboy 25 April 2006, 10:13 (UTC)

I agree that Province of Natal should have its own article, I came here looking for it and was suprised it isnt here --Astrokey44 02:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Never mind, its actually here: Natal Province --Astrokey44 03:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi dude!!! Life is awesome!!!- Mr,Smax 16-02-2017

hi they need paragraphs on forestry and animal farming in kzn-Mr,Smax 16-02-2017

Locations[edit]

Just two small points:

1) I think it is a bit odd to say KZN is in the South East of South Africa. If the centre of the country is around Bloemfontein, KZN is East of the centre. I've never heard of KZN being refered to as in the South East of the country.

2) It's also strange to say Durban is on the South coast of KZN. The KZN South coast is usually defined as the coast South of Durban (while the KZN North coast is North of Durban). Booshank (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Well, I guess it's the southernmost part of eastern SA, which kind of makes it south-eastern. If someone said "Eastern South Africa" I would think of Mpumalanga and Zululand; if someone said "South-Eastern South Africa" I would think of the Natal South Coast and the Transkei, maybe. So it's difficult to really allocate KZN to one cardinal direction.
  2. Agreed. Absolutely standard to used Durban as the boundary between KZN South Coast and KZN North Coast. - htonl (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KwaZulu Natal is not a monarchy[edit]

An annonymous editor has asserted that KwaZulu Natal is a monarchy. This is not the case. The Zulu King is king of the Zulu people, not of the Xhosa people, nor of the Indian people nor of the white people, all of whom are resident in KwaZulu-Natal. His role is like that of a Scottish clan chief or an archbishop. He has influence in KwaZulu Natal (where over half the people are Zulu), but no authority, so the province is not a monarchy. Martinvl (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although the King of the Zulus receives some funding from the provincial government, he has no role - not even a formal one - in the government. He does not open the provincial legislature, or appoint the Premier, or sign provincial Acts, or do any of the other things that parliamentary monarchs do. - htonl (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article 46 of the proposed KZN constitution however provides for a monarch of Kwazulu-Natal, who is the same person that holds the office of Zulu King. While this constitution still needs to be adopted, the Zulu King is regarded as the nominal monarch for the Province. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the whole of the constitution, you will see that the monarch does not play a role in government - the role that one would expect of of monarch in government is taken by the premier and, in the absence of a premier, the chief justice. Martinvl (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms[edit]

I added the coat of arms, and understand that it may be outdated, but since their is a section on the coat of arms, there should probably be an image of the coat of arms somewhere on the page, if not then maybe one needs uploading?Jacsam2 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The currrent coat of arms can be found here. There is a specific note on the page regarding use in Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the current coat of arms from the provincial government website. The NGW website does have a note about allowing use of the images on Wikipedia, but since he received the image "as a scan from a newspaper clipping" he doesn't actually have the copyright authority to allow us to use it. However, we can use the image on this article under the non-free content criteria. - htonl (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-History[edit]

Pre history section is needed, Where Zulu people the first settlers or is there evidence of another group of people who settled prior to Bantu expansion?--Inayity (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KwaZulu–Natal → KwaZulu-Natal – This and all other page moves by Bang4Buck should not have been done without discussion. "KwaZulu-Natal" is a combination, not an opposition, of two entities, and so, per MOS:HYPHEN, should be hyphenated, not en-dashed. – Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for the reasons expressed by the proposer, and note in MOS:HYPHEN, "A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities." Furthermore, here is the relevant page of the South African constitution which declares the names of the provinces; this is the legally binding version printed in the Government Gazette. The letter there is quite clearly a hyphen and not an en-dash. @Anthony Appleyard:: it may be a lot of work, but it needs to be done. - htonl (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Speedy close. Indeed it is, Anthony Appleyard. But if this apparently incorrect decision were to be accepted by the community, there'd be many thousands (or perhaps millions?) of changes to be made. There seem to be almost 4000 articles containing the hyphenated compound name "KwaZulu-Natal", about 2500 articles containing "Emilia-Romagna", and so on. So the mere amount of work involved is not a good rationale for opposing a technical request in this, or indeed in any, case. This was clearly expressed by Dekimasu at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 26#A long list of moves that User:Hmains wants reverted: "these are listed as reversions of recent undiscussed moves. If they are in fact all reversions, they should all go through first, and then RM discussions should proceed from there as necessary. The burden should be on the editors who want to move the pages, not the ones who want to perform reversions" and later "Not processing reversions of undiscussed moves because they are contested would be equivalent to allowing movers to sidestep the RM process by fait accompli". I suggest closing this out-of-process RM, reverting your edit here, and reverting the moves as undiscussed. If anyone wants to try a move request against the existing hard-won consensus at WP:HYPHEN they are of course free to do so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of requested move 14 October 2015[edit]

List of the moves
      • I've removed all the Talk: page moves from the list, since the Talk page is automatically moved when you move the mainspace page. - htonl (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've moved back about 25 articles and their talk pages, going back in time through Bang4Buck's move log and hitting the revert button each time, but I haven't struck their names out from the list above. Will try to finish later. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC
          • Looks like between us the whole lot is done. - htonl (talk) 19:45, 16 October 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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on KwaZulu-Natal. 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) 04:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Natal, South Africa[edit]

Natal, South Africa should be merged into this article as there isn't really any much different information in the previous article. Llightex (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, No, it shouldn't. First off, there isn't anything at "Natal, South Africa" that indicates this page (Kwa-Zulu Natal) would be the most suitable place to merge to; there are at least two other entities called Natal that would equally qualify. Second, there are more than 250 links to "Natal, South Africa", most of which (if the first half-dozen are anything to go by) aren't referring to the modern province of KZN at all, and shouldn't therefore be redirected to here (which would be the outcome of your merger). A better option, if you feel an article at "Natal, South Africa" is redundant, would be to reduce it to a disambiguation page, with the articles currently in the History section listed as targets. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: In fact, if there are no objections, I'll do just that (in a week or so, anyway). Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KwaZulu-Natal. 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) 18:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KwaZulu-Natal&oldid=1205465347"