Talk:The Gambia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Language

are all those languages offical or just English? Fabhcún 20:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

CIA WFB claims only English is [1] ¦ Reisio 14:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Map is of Gabon..

The map given is of the Gabon, for some strange reason. Not sure about copyright system and what maps could be used, but a correct one should be found.

This seems to have been resolved. ¦ Reisio 14:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Alex Haley

I removed the line about Alex Haley - while I'm sure he'd appreciate the coverage, this sentence is about him, not about the Gambia. Hughcharlesparker 11:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied content

The entire section on economics seems to be lifted from here: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5459.htm

Not sure what the legality on that is... --71.1.141.95 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Here is the info, so apparently there is no coptright for this information, though some areas may not be accurate. Enlil Ninlil 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

everything published by the American federal government is copyright-free, although they do not want the materials to make it appear as though the US government is endorsing (whatever you are using the materials for). I am not certain whether the same applies to the state governments, but anything from the Department of State or the Library of Congress (for example) would be free to use. Elinruby (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Everyone loves the Gambia

According to "sights and sounds" on CNN, that is. --NEMT 00:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to an online clip of that CNN promo? adambisset 16:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many pictures

Is it just me, or does this page has a slight overabundance of pictures? Alr 21:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think there should be more pictures, considering not many people have been there or no what it is like. The more the merrier.

The pictures need to be A) Proven as real, and B) Have copyright ownership. We will not allow false images to misdirect Christo-Americans against the cause of crushing terrorists.Mwahcysl (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be more pictures --209.132.142.172 (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

When was Kombo St.Mary's Division created/split off from the Western Division?

yellow:Kombo red:Banjul all:Greater Banjul Area

Re: The Gambia#Administrative Divisions

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kombo+St.Mary%27s+division%22

I do notice a number of districts named Kombo on the picture at Western Division (The Gambia). TransUtopian 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kombo St.Mary's Division is an another name for greater banjul area. --Atamari 16:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So is it an official administrative division or an informal designation for Greater Banjul? TransUtopian 17:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

some information can you get from this site: http://www.statoids.com/ugm.html and the german wikipedia --Atamari 19:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Atamari. I integrated it as best I could into the section. I can't read German, but I read the Statoids page and got a cite for the 5 admin divisions. TransUtopian 20:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It exist two system:

a) the older system LGA (local goverment area) (8 incl Banjul)

b) division (6 incl Banjul as Greater Banjul Area)

see also de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Divisionen Gambias --Atamari 23:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC) this informatio on this websit can be very helpful for anyone doing reasch lol peace

Subdivisions -or- Divisions

This article is not consistent. Click on the "Districts" link and article titled Subdivisions of The Gambia. Subdivisions should be a smaller unit than divisions? There are not synonoms, right? What do the Gambian people use?--SirYoda 05:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The divisions are subdivided into 37 districts. So there are districts but how mant in each division? Enlil Ninlil 06:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be 5 divisions which are them divided into 37 districts. It just confusing that the Subdivisions of The Gambia article's name use the term "Subdivision" since you would that means "list of districts" (by definition Subdivision are smaller than division, right?) --SirYoda 02:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a good idea, change it and tell me when ur done mate. Enlil Ninlil 05:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily going into this discussion, as it's probably better run by more knowledgeable people, but I'm giving you a link to ponder: Talk:Country subdivision#A subdivision is not necessarily a sub-unit to a division -- Jao 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, after looking at this discussion and other countries it looks like we standardized on the generic term "Subdivisions" for States, Provinces, etc. for this type of article. I thought it was a typo of Division. It makes sense now so the articles across countries are consistent. --SirYoda 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed after all of this time how confusing this became - the redirects were all pointing at the Districts page. The Gambia is divided into divisions and subdivided into districts. Thus, it is proper to retain the Divisions of The Gambia page and also the Districts of The Gambia page. I have restored the divisions page to its proper form. Rarelibra 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Economy

Quot.: "The UK and other EU countries constitute The Gambia's major domestic export markets, accounting for 86% in total; followed by Asia at 14%; and the African subregion, including Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, and Ghana at 8%." The result is 108% of the export markets. Can anybody verify the figures, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.73.234.74 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 5 November 2006.

The article says that the GNP pro capita is 2002 US dollars, but in every other source I find an estimate for 2001 of 302.7 US dollars. An incredible gap. Can anyone verify this figure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.208.83.243 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 May 2007.

If you have a source for a figure, and the figure in the article is unsourced, then be bold, and go ahead and change it. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claim

Quote: "Reporters Without Borders has accused "President Yahya Jammeh’s police state" of using murder, arson, unlawful arrest and death threats against journalists, but it is simply speculation." -- "but it is only speculation" is an unsubstantiated judgment inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Who is saying Gambia is not a police state and why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.237.6.178 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Area size discrepancy

Both the figure for the country's area and its rank is different in the infobox and in the list List of countries and outlying territories by total area. __meco 08:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

National Bird

Does The Gambia have a national bird? I'm working on improving the country's bird list, and would like to be able to indicate which species is the national bird, if there is one! MeegsC | Talk 16:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jawara: President or PM?

The article refers to Jawara as both president and prime minister. Which was he? The passage that refers to him as PM also refers to him as head of state, which would make him president (a PM is head of government, not state), but it is still unclear to me. Was he PM before The Gambia became a republic. If so, when did he become president and how? By election, by appointment? Mrrhum 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jawara was PM before Gambia became a republic, when it was a commonwealth realm. Then he became president when it became a republic in 1971. I don't know what the procedure was - most likely he was elected by parliament. john k 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See: 24 April 1970 Plebiscite ”Declaration of the Republic” --Atamari 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"the attitude of the locals towards Westerners is quite different to that of the natives living more inland." - This is not very informative. What is the attitude of the locals? What is the attitude of the inland natives?

This would suggest everyone's love for the gambia is unrequited. --NEMT 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Press freedom

I don't want to plunge into editing this article, because I am sure that many people working on it know far more than I about it, but I did want to draw people's attention to an interesting and well-written article discussing some of the recent press censorship in the Gambia (and sorting out, to some extent, how it has affected various specific newspapers). Someone may want to get hold of this and use it:

• Dawn Starin, "Dancing Lessons from God", Index on Censorship, Volume 36, Number 3, 2007, p. 207–214.

- Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

January 2008 Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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.

Reasoning for the proposed move

Right off the bat, I'd like to state that:

1. Yes, I know that this case is listed as a specific example in the WP naming conventions; I'm asking that the premise that this is based on be discussed, however, so I don't think it's useful to reference this as authority for the purposes of this discussion.
2. I don't disagree that it is proper to refer to "the Gambia" when writing about the country. My only concern here is why the WP article name includes the article.

So why move?

1. I see this as being somewhat analogous to "the Netherlands", where the article is currently at Netherlands. You would never write "Netherlands" without the article, but that doesn't mean the article should be at The Netherlands.
2. We should be using the most commonly-used name. A simple study of the google hits is revealing:

• there are approximately 92 million ghits for "Gambia", which includes all uses, including those with the article
• there are approximately 9 million ghits for "the Gambia" or "The Gambia".
• this means there are approximately 83 million uses of "Gambia" without the article (92 million subtract 9 million = 83 million)
• therefore, in terms of ghits, uses of "Gambia" without the article outweigh uses of "the Gambia" 83 million to 9 million, or by a factor of about 9 times.

For these reasons, I think the article should be moved to Gambia. — Snocrates 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting / Discussion

In favour

• Support I have never heard anybody call it "The Gambia" (to me, it would be like saying "The Japan" or "The Australia"), and a Google search seems to support"Gambia" being far more common. TJ Spyke 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nominator's Netherlands argument and the spirit of the naming conventions. When someone starts saying things like "Yesterday, three The Gambian citizens were awarded gold medals" I might change my mind. — AjaxSmack 04:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In contrast to the number of times you read "three Netherlandian citizens were awarded gold medals"? National adjectives don't really tell us how the nation is named, IMHO. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

True, adjective forms differ. I was trying to show that the article is dispensible but it was a bit of a red herring. Perhaps this part of WP:NCD might clarify things: "If a word without a definite article would have a general meaning, while the same word has a specific and identifiable meaning, understood by all, if adding the article, and if there is justification to have separate articles for both meanings, the specific meaning can be explained on a separate page, with a page title including the article." Gambia and The Gambia are the same thing and contemporary English usage eschews using articles with topnyms (e.g., The Ukraine, The Crimea). A counter example would be pentagon and The Pentagon where addition of the article creates a different meaning. — AjaxSmack 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Opposed

• Oppose - pointless exercise in subjective hair-splitting. Nobody is confused or unable to find the article now. Let's spend out time doing something useful. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think the exercise is pointless, then you'd have no objective if the article were renamed, then, because still no confusion would result and people could still find the article? Some of us care about formatting on WP, and I'd like to hear from those who do, accompanied with some substantive reasoning. Snocrates 00:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting method to encourage responses to your query. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I want discussion on the merits. If someone thinks the whole issue is "pointless" or not a "useful" use of time, well, that's great, but probably not exactly what is helpful in gaining consensus on article name formatting. Snocrates 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also seriously, calling something "pointless" is a discussion about the merits. The proposal has no point, in my opinion - ergo, don't do it. You asked for opinions from the community, as is proper, and this is one of them. No need to immediately go into refutation mode if you disagree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, a substantive discussion on the merits involves providing reasons why either the name should appear as "The Gambia" or why the name should appear as "Gambia". To argue that the entire discussion is "pointless" or a waste of time tells us you oppose the change, but it doesn't tell us why "The Gambia" is preferable. I'm not in "refutation mode", whatever that is, I just want to see some quality reasoning on both sides. This proposal is part of a larger effort to gain some naming convention consensus that can spill over into other areas, such as standardizing the names of the relevant categories, so I really don't have that much invested in whether it fails or succeeds; it's the process and the supporting arguments I am interested in. If you have none, that's fine too. Snocrates 00:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The country's official short name is "The Gambia" and its official description is "Republic of The Gambia" — note the capital 'T'. Most major atlases and encyclopaedias also call this country "The Gambia", such as Doubleday's Atlas of the World, Britannica^[2], Encarta^[3], etc. Besides calling it "Gambia" just wouldn't have the same ring to it. – Axman (☏) 13:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not required to adhere to countries' official names (e.g., Burma, South Korea, East Timor) and, while it's nice for article titles to ring, it's not a necessity. — AjaxSmack 04:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are print sources that use "The Gambia", but just as many can be found that use "Gambia". We're not going to find the answer looking in an atlas. The google hits test gives a far more global measure of usage than cherry-picking a few atlases or other sources. Snocrates 06:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Axman's reasoning (other than the '"nice ring" bit!) and DavidWBrooks observations. A count of Google hits not a way to decide things. It is a way of imposing a US/ Western bias, if anything (think aliminum/ aluminium), and is exaggerated by the use of the word in other uses than the national name (Gambia taxis, the river Gambia, Gambian recipes etc). Using the proposers logic, we should also rename "Mediterranean Sea" (4million ghits) with "Mediterranean" (47 million ghits). We might not be required to adhere to countries' official names, but it is correct and respectful to do so. I don't consider it "cherry picking" to know the official title, but go instead for the most popular (mis)use of a term, or one which complies with a Wikipedian general ruleprinciple.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol -- I am neither American nor do I consider myself "Western" and I'm definitely not trying to "impose" anything, as I have stated above. You may not consider it cherry picking to pull out a few examples that comply with a certain opinion, but that's generally what it's called. I also question whether "The Gambia" is the "official name" in all contexts. For example, the official UN list of member states simply uses "Gambia". (Yes, I know, it's a cherry pick, but I'm showing it as one example to counter the impression being given that "The Gambia" is somehow "official".) This is the same list that uses such "official" names as "United Republic of Tanzania"; "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"; "Russian Federation"; "Lao People's Democratic Republic"; and others. Doesn't seem like the Gamibia is too concerned about getting the article in the name at the UN, at least, so I don't think this is an issue of "respect". Finally, I would point out that there is no consensus on whether to use Mediterranean or Mediterranean Sea. The article uses the "sea" designation, but many of the associated categories that refer to the sea omit the word "sea". Snocrates 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if my comments appeared to be accusing you, personally, of trying to impose a US or Western bias. I was referring to the dubious practice of counting google hits as a way of 1. "giving a far more global measure of usage" or, more importantly, saying which is the correct term for an encyclopaedia to use.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you. I apologise for misinterpreting what you said. Snocrates 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - As far as I know, 'The Gambia' is the common name. It is always known as The Gambia, on for example the BBC. EJF (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

More comment - I voted oppose above, so this isn't another vote. With all this interesting debate (you're right, Snocrates - discussing it is more interesting than dismissing it) local usage should hold sway. Alas, it appears unlikely we'll hear opinions from people living in The Gambia; I spent two days as a tourist there 20 years ago and don't really remember which was used by people on the street. A check of the AllAfrica news service, based in the continent, find both usages, sometimes even in a single story ([4]). Since there is no single rule about naming all countries' articles due to the complexity of issues (Ivory Coast - in French or in English?), and there appears to be no compelling argument either way in this case, I still think we should not switch the article but leave it with the official name. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Axman and discussion at top of page. There seems to be enough "encyclopaedic" coverage calling it The Gambia like Britannica and CIA Factbook. Zuiver jo (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

Republic of The Gambia

Gambia and The Gambia are both "short versions" of Republic of The Gambia. I think that Gambia, in this case, is the most correct name of these two, since we don't have an article about The Netherlands when referring to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

However, The Gambia can be seen as the "more correct version" of Gambia, by having a longer and so more accurate part of the name. So I propose changing the name of the article from The Gambia to Republic of The Gambia, as a third opinion to the naming dispute, that is both "correct" and "good to read". --Fixman^{Praise me} 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the third opinion policy before commenting. --Fixman^{Praise me} 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Poll on name formatting

As a question related to the requested move discussion directly above, I present the following issue for discussion and would like to do so in "poll" fashion.

• When using the name of the country somewhere other than the beginning of a sentence, should we use capital-T "The Gambia" or small-t "the Gambia" ?
  • E.g. : Is it "Bob Smith took a trip to The Gambia." or "Bob Smith took a trip to the Gambia." ?
• This could also related to categories. E.g., should it be Category:Foo in The Gambia or Category:Foo in the Gambia ?

Thanks for participating. Snocrates 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Gambia"

• – Axman (☏) 13:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• - WotherspoonSmith (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC) it is a proper noun, not a common noun.
• - Managerpants (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"the Gambia"

87.114.14.235 (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC) (British newspaper title convention is "The Times/Guardian" and yet it is good editorial style often to say "this article appeared in the Times")

Just "Gambia"

Gambian stamps always said "Gambia" on them. Then the announcement was made, as noted further up this page, that there was some alleged confusion between Gambia and Zambia, and somehow the pompous addition of the "The" would change this. Clearly, "Gambia, West Africa" would have solved the problem. I call it "Gambia" as I have since the 1960s when as tiny children collecting stamps, nobody at school ever got confused over this theoretical naming crisis.

Varlaam (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Gambia" is in the same category as "Kampuchea" or "Myanmar". A country's government decides to rename itself for obscure domestic political reasons, and no one outside the country is obligated to respect that, since the country's name will revert soon enough. To Cambodia, Burma, or Gambia, as the case may be.

Varlaam (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember when that crook Bokassa renamed his country from the Central African Republic to the Central African Empire, making it more of a laughingstock than it already was? No money for literacy programmes, lots of money for elaborate coronation ceremonies. And how long did that name change last?

This Gambian relabelling was not a real change, like Northern Rhodesia->Zambia, Rhodesia->Zimbabwe or Ceylon->Sri Lanka, where the name change is part and parcel of an actual legitimate political transformation. There's no transformation here in this case.

It's bogus, much like the Ivory Coast demanding that it only be referred to by the French version of its name, and never any other version.

Varlaam (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The one good thing you can say about that crook Mobutu is he finally solved the two Congos problem. In colonial days, it was easy, French Congo, Belgian Congo. Simple. Then at independence they both claimed the word "Congo", so they had to be distinguished by their capital cities, Léopoldville and Stanleyville. That was cumbersome, but stable. But then they needed to nationalize the names of their capital cities. Mobutu fixed that crap in one stroke with his brilliant "Zaire", short, memorable. It even looks cool. And Zaire allowed the French Congo to be plain Congo. And now we're back to two Congos again.

African countries are not solving any of their genuine problems with this naming nonsense.

Varlaam (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Brazzaville, not Stanleyville. And Brazzaville has always been called that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.67.70 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Enclave

In the enclave article, it says: "A country almost surrounded by another but having access to the sea is not considered to be an enclave. For this reason, The Gambia is not an enclave of Senegal." The way the link is setup, it implies The Gambia is an enclave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.221.211 (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the word "enclaved". The situation is explained anyway. —Coroboy (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A gambia

according to Flag of Oman is a traditional curved dagger. Rich Farmbrough, 22:31 24 August 2008 (GMT).

"Smallest country in Africa"

The lead currently says "The Gambia is the smallest country in Africa". Ought this to be reworded to "African mainland" or similar? São Tomé and Príncipe and The Seychelles are both smaller by both population and area, and are officially considered as part of Africa. (Apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere – I can't see it anywhere.) – iridescent 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably smallest country in mainland Africa. I would need to research that. Thanks. miranda 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Very Incomplete

This Wiki seems to be representing an "official presentation" rather than the reality of recent years. Not a single mention of this, for instance. No mention of Yahya Jammeh repeatedly claiming that he can cure AIDS (specifically, on mondays). I'm going to drum up sources so that this Wiki can stop ignoring the elephant in the corner of the room. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

as i see you have your own user account so you can contribute too ;-) ..anyway, i don't think these news are important in that way that it has to be mentioned in article about the country. it can be suitable for artile about Yahya Jammeh, Yahya Jammeh and maybe about Politics of The Gambia. ..Dubhe.sk (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

While the specifics are indeed better suited to be elaborated in the more specific Wikis, it can't be easily argued that certain mentions shouldn't be included here. I'm certainly capable and going to add fitting text, but as some of these might end up being considered debatable by other editors I wanted to make mention of it here so that folks will know to bring it up for discussion other than toss reverts at my edits. If these issues were a little more contained to specific politicians or activists then I would see lesser need for inclusion, but some of these matters are central to the nation as a whole. So have a good evening, and feel free to comment on changes that I make. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

About Unlinking

To whom it may concern:

According to general Wikipedia policy Gambian Independence Day should be unlinked. However, it seems to me that the date has relevance as a matter of state, at least to Gambians. I have left it linked. Any comments will be welcome. Dsnow75 [[User Talk: Dsnow75|Talk]] (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename to Gambia

This article should be moved to Gambia per Wikipedia:THE#Other_cases. Does anyone (dis)agree? Parthian Scribe 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, lots of people do - see the discussions above; this has been talked to death, with no consensus for a move. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Parthian Scribe. Varlaam (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

the Gambia, Gambia or The Gambia?

Someone request a move of many pages pertaining to "The Gambia". Is that how it's spelt? Any references for this because this article seems to start out okay, but later it ends up going to "the Gambia". --CyclePat (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the above discussions. I guess those are mistakes? --CyclePat (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania

Jacob Kettler wasn't a polish vasal, he was a LITHUANIAN vasal as he swore to Žygymantas Augustas, the last duke of independent Lithuanian Grand Duchy, before the Liublin union. Correct the mistake.--86.100.228.119 (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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 generalist interest in Africa) would collaborate on improving the historical quality of Wikipedia articles about Africa and African history. For more details click here or here here.

Ackees (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The Gambia → Gambia — Most other countries using the definate article are titled without it on Wikipedia, such as Netherlands and Philippines. I've read the above failed proposal, but I don't see any convincing reason not to move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per the 2008 debate, unless you can come up with better arguments than that. The BBC still uses "The Gambia" mid-sentence, which it does NOT for [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1043528.stm the Netherlands etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't appear to be consistent on this matter: it talks about "colonial rule in Gambia" on another page for example, and while it has a country profile on Gambia as "The Gambia", it also has a country profile on "The Netherlands". If anything, I would argue that if anything in English people actually almost always use "the Netherlands" or "Holland" in common speech ("England face the Netherlands in a bronze medal play-off"), but mostly use "Gambia" without the definite article ("while Gambia is viewed as stable, it is regularly criticised for human rights abuses..."). I can produce more evidence if required. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In colonial times, and for a while after, it was "Gambia". It doesn't use "The" Netherlands mid-sentence - find an example! Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The country was renamed in the post-colonial, to avoid confusion with Zambia. There are plenty of examples of the BBC using "the Netherlands", not with a capital T, but is that important? The inconsistancies in the BBC's usage of the name, shown above, mean we can surely discount the BBC as an authorative spelling guide in this instance. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. As I noted before, when someone starts saying things like "Yesterday, three The Gambian citizens were awarded gold medals" I might change my mind. — AjaxSmack 01:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a good argument. The sentence structure would be changed to Yesterday, three citizens of The Gambia were awarded gold medals. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The noun form has "The", the adjectival form not; this is in fact very common. Compare The New York Times - do you say "three The New York Times journalists"? Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. I'll support a proposed move there too. — AjaxSmack 01:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, you would say three journalists from The New York Times. Either that or three New York Times journalists would be acceptable, so the point proves nothing, one way or the other. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as I would say three lads from the White House, the Porte, the CIA, the Kuomintang, and so on. I'm pretty consistent in not wanting articles in front of article titles. Wikipedia isn't. — AjaxSmack 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This is just a reiteration of the 2008 discussion, which found no consensus to move. No new arguments have been forthcoming, and it strikes me as a case of I just don't like it!. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • While it's true that I don't like it, my argument is not based on that alone. Current Wikipedia usage is arbitrary (as User:84.92.117.93 and I have illustrated above) and usage of articles in titles is contrary to a long tradition of English usage. No, I don't have any new arguments but rely on a broad interpretation of WP:UE. However, I posit there should be profound reason for the usage of articles in titles, a practice that counters the trend of modern English usage, especially in this case where other countries such as the Philippines and the Netherlands forgo this practice. Such reasons were lacking in 2008 and are lacking now. — AjaxSmack 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above discussion. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you didn't make a commment in the above move request, I would like to know what your exact reasons for opposing the move are so I can properly address them. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Related category hierarchy nominated for renaming

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 8#Subcategories of Category:The Gambia. The name change is the one that has been discussed here with respect to writing the definite article in upper or lower case. __meco (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As a follow-up of the above renaming to the uniform spelling of the Gambia with a lower case t in the, I have proposed the renaming of articles similarly. Please see Talk:History of The Gambia#Requested move(s) – Move to uncapitalized article names. __meco (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: The Gambia or the Gambia

The following discussion 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.

---

Unresolved

 – The matter here failed to reach a consensus, with 6 people arguing to capitalize "the", 5 arguing not to capitalize, and 1 stating she/he was happy with either. The usual course would be to look back to any prior discussion, & follow the consensus reached there; that would be the CfD discussion Jafeluv references below, which was to not capitalize "the". However, this RfC was opened because a number of people objected to that consensus, so the only fair result is to say no consensus exists, & more discussion is needed before one is achieved. As a further point, since the changes made to various categories were in good faith based on that discussion, those changes should not be reverted, & anyone doing that is being disruptive & should be appropriately sanctioned.

Looking at the discussion more closely, there are a number of points made which should be accepted as proven -- & some which I'm surprised were never addressed.

Points proven

• Is this change to the article's name -- "The Gambia" to "the Gambia" possible? Yes, by using {{Lowercase title}}.
• What is the attested practice in other reference works? Bsherr has found two official uses of "the Gambia"; but Jimfbleak has found at least as many official uses of "The Gambia". Attested practice seems to be split on this issue.
• Capitalizing "the" in a name is, I'd like to point out, unnatural in English usage; it is only done for emphasis, usually sarcastic emphasis. If I may put words in people's mouths, this is the primary motivation for people objecting to capitalization. And this is why examples like "the Netherlands or the United States of America" were mentioned.

Points in need of further discussion

• A more comprehensive survey of official usage, both by the country of this name, as well as by other groups. Yes, this would be arguing by numbers or Google hits, but at the moment the handful of examples provided make any decision based on that point cherry-picking.
• There is at least one other example of "the" in a name being capitalized -- The Dalles, a town in Oregon, named after an adjacent landmark. It is the only placename in Oregon, & perhaps the United States, in which "the" is part of its name. If you refer to the town as simply "Dalles", you will get a puzzled look & a correcting to "The Dalles." This example is far more relevant, IMHO, than "the United States", or "the United Kingdom" or "the Soviet Union", which are names derived from their administrative organization: respectively, the United States is a union of states, the United Kingdom is a union of at least two royalties (I don't know if Wales, Northern Ireland, Cornwall & the Isle of Man are considered to be on the same standing as England & Scotland), & the Soviet Union is a union of soviets -- the Russian word for local meetings or councils.
• Is "The Gambia" a compound word? People brought up this point only to dismiss it, but not to properly explore it. One could argue that "The Dalles" is a compound word, & if "The Gambia" is also one, then it should be capitalized.
• The function of "the" in this name. This is an important point which I'm surprised neither side raised: geographical locations are often referred to by prefixing "the" to the noun (e.g., "The Balkans", "the Ivory Coast", etc.) And the presence of "the" can change the meaning of the noun in a significant way: "Lebanon" refers to the country, while "the Lebanon" refers to the geographical area Lebanon is coterminous in; "Sudan" refers to the country, while "the Sudan" refers to a belt of savanna which includes far more area than the country. If "the" is likewise germane in the name of this country, then it is an integral part of the word & should be capitalized. Just as "the" is in "The Dalles".

Note: While this may appear that I am biassed towards capitalizing "the" here, had there a clear majority in favor of not capitalizing -- or persuasive arguments based on more than the unnaturalness of capitalizing -- I would have closed this discussion in that way. On the other hand, there was not a clear majority for capitalizing, & most of the arguments for this were based on how many official usages people could find which did capitalize "the". I couldn't help but come to this discussion with my own thoughts of how the outcome should be, & had my concerns been addressed by both parties, I would have endorsed the persuasive argument. This is a peculiar situation, where an exception may prove the rule -- or be required to follow it -- & requires more thought than counting examples of usage. -- llywrch (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Short version: Should the definite article in the country name The Gambia be capitalized or not?

Long version: A large number of pages were recently moved to include "the Gambia" instead of "The Gambia" as the page title. This was done after a CFD discussion in October and a subsequent move request. Because the discussions attracted few participants and because not all interested editors were notified, the moves have since been disputed; see discussion on my talk page.

Please try to come to a consensus in this matter. If there's no clear consensus either way, the articles may need to be moved back to the status quo ante, although that is for the closing editor to decide. In any case I can help perform the actual moves if needed once the issue is settled. Jafeluv (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there would be any need to move. {{Lowercase title}} works fine, and achieves the same purpose. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Uncapitalize. As I explained at the CfD, the United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database states that the article ("the") is uncapitalized.

In Oxford, two forms are recognized, "Gambia" or "the Gambia", article uncapitalized. "Gambia" The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 11 October 2010

Productive for this discussion will be reliable sources speaking directly to how the country name should be used, not anecdotal examples.

--Bsherr (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Capitalise "The" A country's name isn't a matter for a Wikipedia vote, nor is it obvious to me why Oxford is a more reliable source than Banjul. The Gambia itself uses "The" on the government website and its UN mission, and it's also used by The British High Commission in Banjul and the US embassy in Banjul. I think it's frankly insulting that Wikipedia editors, most of whom have scarcely heard of The Gambia, let alone been there, think they know better than the government of the country and missions/embassies based in The Gambia. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment We are not attempting to change the name of any country; rather, we are only trying to change the way the name of said country is presented within the boundaries of an encyclopedia. Per WP:COMMONNAME, regardless of whether the official name really is "The Gambia", we should try to focus more on how much usage there is of the specific version of the name to find that which is most prevalent within the English language. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If you can find a Gambian source speaking directly to whether the article should be capitalized, I would give it significant deference. Anecdotal evidence, like how it's used on a web site, is weaker because the author had no intention of legislating the convention. On the contrary, one would expect that the United Nations and Oxford conscientiously researched the matter before making a determination. --Bsherr (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree that the government's official website counts as "anecdotal evidence" of a certain usage. Rather, I think this is addressed in WP:SELFPUB, i.e., self-published sources can be used as sources of information about themselves, provided that there's no reason to suspect they're not being truthful about the information. --RSLxii 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying government web sites are not reliable, which is an opinion. I'm saying they're anecdotal, which is a fact, not an opinion. Sources that say "the article preceding Gambia should/shouldn't be capitalized" (or something equally definitive) are not anecdotal. Everything else is anecdotal. You misunderstand the term, I think.--Bsherr (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
        • In that case, the OED and UN references you provided are also "anecdotal". Mlm42 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Uncapitalise. I think that the capitalised version has been used in the same way as The Netherlands or The United States of America (both are redirects). UNTERM explicitly leaves it lower case. –Moondyne 08:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Although my personal preference would be for The Gambia, I would suggest that we should look for the common name, per WP:COMMON, rather than rely on any particular single source. Also, why would a lack of consensus lead to a move? If a previous discussion among a subset of people reached a consensus to move from A to B, and then a larger discussion fails to produce a consensus either way, where's the mandate to move from B back to A? bobrayner (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because three previous votes (see above on this page) were clearly in favor of leaving it at "The Gambia". If the most recent vote had been announced to ALL interested parties, rather than a subset, it could have had a different outcome. MeegsC | Talk 16:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Uncapitalize. Although I am willing to change my opinion should persuasive positions be presented to support "The Gambia", we have had one thorough discussion (the CfD) on this and then a follow-up move process of more than 70 pages that had the capitalized spelling in the page names. Notification was given above in both instances. For this reason I also object to the position that no consensus should default to status quo ante. That might have been appropriate had the two previous processes been undertaken in a swift and non-collaborative way, but both processes were done rather meticulously. (I will however conceded that the move process was stained by the technical faultiness of the move procedure, where the template used for mass (umbrella) move nominations cannot handle more than 20 pages and add to that the bot making notifications on talk pages of the nominated pages only does so on the first ten. This means that most of the moved pages weren't notified of the ongoing move process.) __meco (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Capitalize the is part of the name of the country and so should be deserved to be capitalized or completely remove the from the heading like netherlands. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment That's an assertion with no following rationale. Why should "the" be capitalized even if it was part of the name of the country? Just because "the" does not exist before Netherlands does not mean that this article should do the same. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Capitalize. "The" is part of the official English name of the country, and — as such — should be included in the title in its correct form (e.g. capitalized). "The" is not officially part of the name of the United States of America, and thus should not be included in the title. I'm not sure what to think about "The Netherlands", since that is a translation of the country's Dutch name. Just because some people refer to it incorrectly doesn't mean we should consider putting the article there. That's what redirects are for. Surely the job of an encyclopedia should be to teach, not to regurgitate incorrect information! MeegsC | Talk 12:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment That's wrong again. Please take a look at and reread WP:COMMONNAME. Regardless of whether the title of an article is correct or incorrect, we should be looking for the version of it that is of the most common use in the English language, preferably in reliable sources. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know what WP:COMMONNAME says. Not sure I fully agree with it, since it implies that we should go with the "mass decision" even when that's demonstrably wrong, but I certainly am fully aware of what it says. What I disagree with is the comment that "most people" (or even most sources) refer to it as "the Gambia". OED is not "most sources"! MeegsC | Talk 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The UN indicates the official name of the country is "the Republic of the Gambia". Do you have a citation for your rendition of the official name? --Bsherr (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes: The New York Times. They state the official name is "Republic of The Gambia". Mlm42 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • And the CIA Factbook. Expand the "Government" section. MeegsC | Talk 16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • That's compelling, but then later (if you expand the economy section) when the CIA uses it in a paragraph, it prints "the Gambia". --Bsherr (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, the African Union says: "officially the republic of The Gambia, commonly known as Gambia". Mlm42 (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The heading of the page says "Republic of the Gambia", so I guess that's out as reliable. --Bsherr (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, a UN webpage called "country facts" says "Country Name conventional long form: Republic of The Gambia conventional short form: The Gambia". Mlm42 (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, the Commonwealth of Nations consistently refers to the country as "The Gambia", capitalized (including in a 15 page country report. Mlm42 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Re: your comment above about websites and how they provide only "anecdotal use", Bsherr, I've just done a Google book search of "the Gambia"; check out the results yourself. (Don't just look at the screen's page listings, which are Google-created; actually look in the books themselves.) I've gone as far as the 5th page, and have yet to see the country referred to as "the Gambia; they are all "The Gambia". That includes Bradt and Rough Guide tourist guides, International Monetary Fund's publications, field guides to birds and flowers of the country, history books and more. MeegsC | Talk 18:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Anecdotal evidence is saying it should be capitalized/uncapitalized because they use it capitalized/uncapitalized in this book/article/website. This is inferior to direct evidence, which is, it should be capitalized because this dictionary/gazetteer/style guide, speaking to the issue of whether it should be capitalized or uncapitalized, says it should/shouldn't. The reason anecdotal evidence is inferior is because the author of the source being used as anecdotal evidence did not intend to legislate the use of the term. Contrast that to direct sources, like the Oxford English Dictionary, which, presumably, deliberately researched which form is correct in reashing its determination. Or the United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database, the function of which is to definitively prescribe the form of proper nouns in all UN languages. News article and books are not compelling unless they are news articles or books about the correct letter casing of the Gambia. --Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Put another way, if 61% of the world says "the whether is sunny", that still doesn't make it correct English. Now, if you found that the majority of dictionaries say the definition of "whether" is "atmospheric environmental conditions affecting the troposphere", that would be compelling. --Bsherr (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Neither the UN source you point to, nor the OED specifically comment on the capitalization; in fact the OED prefers just "Gambia". Also I pointed to another UN source which does capitalize - namely the portion of their website which is specifically devoted to the country. Your "whether" analogy is off the mark; the country's own government prefers capitalization. Mlm42 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
        • False. Both sources intentionally and determinatively set the word "the" in lower case. --Bsherr (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Un-capitalize Per the sources provided by Bsherr and the common names policy. Sudan is officially the Republic of Sudan, Egypt is the Arab republic of Egypt, ect. I don't see any reason why this country is a special case. I'm confused by above comments stating that it is "insulting" to not use the official form from the government and other comments that dismiss the relevance of the common names policy. Policy is hammered out by a much bigger consensus then we will see participate here. Imagine a AFD discussion closing with a consensus to disregard the deletion criteria!--Banana (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment If that's the case (pun intended), then perhaps it makes more sense to title it "Gambia" than "the Gambia"! BTW, one of Bsherr's two sources (OED) is not available unless one pays for a subscription. Not really a useful reference to include for most of us. MeegsC | Talk 14:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I regret that, but, unfortunately, the very best grammar and spelling references are not available for free. I prefer Oxford because it's the closest to an internationalized English and it's very, very expansive. Feel free to consult your favorite American or British dictionary and report back if the result is contradictory. It's not listed in Cambridge or Macmillain free online. Merriam-Webster uses the uncapitalized article. --Bsherr (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment, nice, the OED and the UN are correct because they are based in Oxford and NY, whereas the Gambia-based sources I gave are ignored because it's just some grotty little African country, what do they know about their own name? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I understand that you care about this issue, but please don't assume other editors prefer western viewpoints over African sources. No one has said anything like that. As I have explained above, the reason I do not think your sources are particularly relevant is that they are all from official government sources. We could find the same sources for Sudan, Egypt and many other countries, and yet they are listed at their common names. If you think a government's official name should override other sources, then you have a disagreement with policy. On a side note, whether a source is behind a paywall or not has nothing to do with this discussion. I routinely cite JSTOR articles on Wikipedia. --Banana (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Capitalize Even the Constitution of Gambia, which can be seen at www.ncce.gm/files/constitution.pdf, uses "The Gambia" in the Preabmle and Article 1. If the name of the country is set out in the Constitution, we should really use it (but I know it will not apply to Burma, which is a case on its own). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

  There are many cases where we don't use the "official" name given by the country's constitution (or some other big proclamation by the government). This is, quite often, because they like to throw in additional labels which aren't appropriate in the title or body of an encyclopaedia article; for instance "Democratic Republic of X", or "People's Republic of Y", or "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya where everybody loves Gaddafi but he's not a dictator, honest"; but there are examples where there are issues of translation or grammar. Wikipedia has existing policies on names which do not always go with the "official" version; I'm happy to bend rules if there's a good reason, but am not convinced that Gambia is a special case. bobrayner (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note that The Gambia's official language is English (interestingly, it's not the official language of either the US or UK) so o translation issue, also "The" is hardly "additional labels" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• leaning Capitalize -my impression that it is capitalised, but we need some review of sources - and i am happy to go with consensus on that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Capitalize The BBC (here) capitalizes, CNN (here) and the New York Times (here) seem to often write just "Gambia", but when they use The, then it's capitalized. A Google News search for "the Gambia", gives mixed results, but scanning the first few pages they lean slightly towards capitalization. As was noted above, their constitution capitalizes.. so given the division of the usage in reliable sources, (and hence the possible indecision of WP:COMMONNAME), the constitution seems like a safe fall-back plan. Mlm42 (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Correct link to NY Times. --Bsherr (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Leaning Either Way (but make a decision quick instead of dragging this out). I think we can all agree that the usage of capitalization (and even the application of the "the") isn't consistent worldwide. The Chicago Manual of Style says "an initial the as part of a name is lowercased in running text, except in the rare case of an initial the in the name of a city." As examples, it mentions "the Netherlands" and "The Hague". A rule like the one presented in the Chicago Manual of style is at least a consistent, followable rule. And neither the Chicago Manual of Style nor the Oxford English Dictionary (which also recommends lower case) are references to be easily dismissed! On the other hand, worldwide common use seems to lean (very slightly) towards capitalization, the few other dictionaries I consulted seem to like a capitalized "The", and the fact that the official government webpage calls its country "The Gambia" should count for something. Rather than argue back and forth, why not stop now, agree that there's no obvious answer, and arbitrarily pick one or the other? And whatever gets decided, can someone inform the people at The Bahamas article the result of this RFC? -- RSLxii 21:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • One final note: I'm not sure we can use online sources to determine what is the common capitalization. As The Gambia isn't currently an internationally newsworthy location, one could argue that the Gambia is only rarely discussed (in English) outside of the Gambia, and therefore common use is best determined by seeing the use inside The Gambia. But my main point still stands--since it's uncertain, let's pick either 'the' or 'The' and move on.--RSLxii 16:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• How about Gambian newspapers, like The Point, which uncapitalizes, and The Daily Observer, which capitalizes? Looking at anecdotal sources doesn't get us anywhere. We should make a determination based on the weight of reliable sources speaking directly to the matter of capitalization, like the UN place names database, dictionaries, and style guides. --Bsherr (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Uncapitalise. Even if the constitution or other official sources capitalise, I think a more "down style" is generally appropriate in an encyclopedia's writing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Another style guide, this one from the Economist Intelligence Unit (related to The Economist magazine) says to always capitalize the "The": http://www.scribd.com/doc/30651060/Style-Book. This is the last you'll hear from me--the issue is not clear cut, nor is it particularly important. I hope editors will refrain from stubbornness and allow this to be decided quickly. The sooner you finish here, the sooner your bright brains can help with more important issues at Wikipedia! --RSLxii 20:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Also, when we're finished here someone should make an entry for [T/t]he Gambia at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). __meco (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Wrap it up? There is clearly no consensus to change from the country's official name. Can we bring this to a halt and restore the versions prior to the limited non-consultative discussion that led to the move? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It is dead even right now, so there is really no way to wrap it up without having a round four. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Consensus is not a majority vote. It is clear that there is no collective will to change from the country's official name to a Wikipedia version, nor is it likely that a consensus will arise in the foreseeable future, so what's the point in keeping this discussion going, especially as it's a dead certainty that it will be suggested for a fourth time next year Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• The Gambia or 'Gambia'. I can see no justification whatever for 'the Gambia'. If 'The' is part of the name it should be capitalised, as is the case for any proper noun, if not then 'Gambia'. It is not like 'the United States' or 'the United Kingdom' where the words have an ordinary English meaning. Good Olfactory, if 'The Gambia' is the official name, it is not open to us to "down style" it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not true. We "downsize" words that constitute parts of official names all of the time. Do you write "I went to The Bronx" or "I went to the Bronx"? Do you write "I went to The Bahamas" or "I went to the Bahamas"? "The" is part of the official name in both of these instances, but it's far more common to see the lowercase "the" used. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The official name of the Bahamas is 'Commonwealth of The Bahamas'. Putting 'the' in front of a singular name that has no other meaning in English is a very strong indication that it is the for a reason, unlike the case of plural names like 'Canaries', 'East Indies', where there is a natural tendency to add 'the'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet almost all sources (including the majority of print encyclopedias I have checked) don't capitalize the "The" in "the Bahamas". They downsize the official name. So it must be OK for an encyclopedia to do. You've helped prove my point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

'The Bahamas' is not the official name thus 'the' is not capitalised, 'The Gambia' is the official name thus 'The' is capitalised. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If "The Bahamas" is the not the official name, then neither is "The Gambia". The full name is "Commonwealth of The Bahamas"—the government shortens it to "The Bahamas". The official name of the Gambia is the "Republic of The Gambia"—the government shortens it to "The Gambia". It's a nearly exact parallel situation, with the exception that the Bahamas uses "Commonwealth" rather than "Republic". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the oficial name. For such a dispute i think we can resort to that. It is my understanding that the official name probably doesnt have "the " in front of it and that is just a case fof the english language adding it for some circumstances (as in the Punjab). in that case the artilcle should have the gambia at all as it is refered to as "Gambia" in common parlance.

The Netherlands' page doesnt have a "the". but then again a country like "republic of India" only takes out the republic. WP:Common name should clear this out(Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

The Constitution uses "The" when it describes the country. In the preabmle, the second paragraph starts with the following: "We the people of The Gambia have accomplished a great and historic task. We have had our say on how we should be governed. For this Constitution contains our will and resolve for good governance and a just, secure and prosperous society." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Several people have already commented on the basis that Oxford knows better than Banjul. There's more than a whiff of "Europeans/Americans know better than Africans" about this whole discussion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would put it this way: all countries should have the right to determine their own official name and style. All the evidence suggests that the country calls itself 'The Gambia'. That should be an end to it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that your premise has no basis in our guidelines, and the evidence is actually quite unclear. --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Which WP policy tells us that we should change the names of countries? Although there are exceptions, the clear preference in official Gambian sources seems to be for 'The Gambia'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, "all countries should have the right to determine their own official name and style"; I don't disagree with you. But it must be this encyclopedia that chooses for itself what its article describing such a country should look like in the English language. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course we decide on the name, that is what we are doing right now. The question is, on what basis should we do this? My answer, which is self-consistent and logical, is to call each country what it wishes to be called. Imposing our own personal or national preference on each country's name is a recipe for friction and argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, no one has uncovered a source from the Gambian government speaking directly to the format of the name. The closest is perhaps the embassy website, but it's dubious to claim the webmaster of the embassy website, by virtue of how he or she formats the country name, was thoughtfully legislating the matter on behalf of the country. Contrast that to very reliabe sources, like dictionaries and gazetteers, which did intend to assure a format, and came to a different conclusion. Wikipedia obviously does not decide the name of a country, it merely comes to a determination of what is correct based on WP:Reliable sources. Dictionaries are more reliable than web sites. --Bsherr (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, my dictionary (Collins) has 'The Gambia' so there is no agreement amongst dictionaries. Government and official web sites are recognised as reliable sources and I would expect the government of most countries to show an interest and exercise control over how their country's name is shown on official web sites. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"No, no one has uncovered a source from the Gambian government speaking directly to the format of the name. Uhh....what about their Constitution as I pointed out? That is a government source and that usually discusses what name the country will go by (with long and short form in some cases). http://www.gambia.gov.gm/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=40 uses The Gambia I am not sure what other government sources are needed, but I been beating down using the Constitution for a while now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is quite obvious to anyone who looks that the country styles itself as 'The Gambia'. It would be interesting and might be helpful to this discussion to know why. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wrap it up? (2) Sigh...after 27 days there is clearly no consensus (Consensus is not a majority vote) to change from the country's official name, nor is it likely that a consensus will arise in the foreseeable future. What's the point in keeping this discussion going, especially as it's a dead certainty that it will be suggested for a fourth time next year Can we bring this to a halt and restore the versions prior to the limited non-consultative discussion that led to the move? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

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.

hi,can anyone help me find my sister jeanette tayler she went missing in the gambia about 5 yrs ago.she white english 56 yrs old. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.209.112 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)