Talk:Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	South Africa portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2014(UTC). The result of the discussion was Keep.

Breakup

How do I breakup Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein?

"Twee buffels met eens koot mors doodges kiet fontein"?

-- Toytoy 01:47, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Close :) It is "twee_buffels_met_een_skoot_mors_dood_geskiet_fontein". --Dewet 20:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd say keep "morsdood" as one word, since it's just an expression meaning "dead dead" (very dead). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

What is this article actually about? A word?? I'm not trying to be rude, but you have got to be kidding me... - Marvin01 | talk 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a piece of South African folklore.Martinvl (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have rehashed the article - hopefully it is now comprehensible to non-South Africans. Martinvl (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is still lacking some information/pictures. can a map be put up of this place, and maybe some more history on the place?Beefcake6412 (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S-G registration of the farm

Sadly, the farm is actually registered under the name "Twee Buffels Geschiet" and not the full name, as you can see on the Trig Survey map and this title deed. - htonl (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed?

I removed the two requests for "Citations needed".

I Googled "Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein" and got 2900 hits. Does this need a citation to say tht it is part of South African folklore - if one can be found, great, if not - this is an example of regional common knowledge. Why else would a farm that has no significance other than having 44 letters in its name get 2900 hits?

As regards its translation - I improved the original translation that was given - I am reasonable fluent in Afrikaans. Moreover, most of the 2900 Google hits give a simialr translation to mine. Martinvl (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You restored a reference which appears to draw its own information from this article. Given that you have repeatedly made edits of the same nature to other articles (restoring highly dubious references in the face of clear rationales for their deletion) there is little reason to give you any further benefit of the doubt as regards your understanding of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. I'll be removing this "reference" again and re-tagging on my next pass: any future instances of you restoring plainly unreliable sources with bogus rationales will be met with a call to the wider community on your behaviour. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific? Martinvl (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not:

Add unreliable sources to articles (such as blogs, wikis, or articles whose own reference is Wikipedia)
Add original research to articles (such as content drawn from personal expertise or investigation and not available in a reliable source)
Re-add such content when it is removed with a valid rationale

This applies to all of your edits and not just this article. If it happens again, I'm going to have the flag this for community attention. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific - ie which partcular items are you commenting on. Martinvl (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have revisited the article. The comment about it being part of South Africa's folklore does not need a citation - the last two paragraph's Rautenbach/Goosen's song and the advertising hoarding are proof of it being part of folklore. I have also removed the "citation needed" flag next to the translation. I made the translation and posted it on 9-Dec-2009. On 25-Apr-2010 another editor searched the internet and came across a copy of my translation and bolted it onto the article. If you look at the article WP:NOTOR, you will see that faithful translation of a piece of text is not original research and therefore does not require a citation.

I trust that this is the end of the matter. Martinvl (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTOR is an essay, rather than a part of the guideline on original research, and it most certainly does not include gaming the system by adding original research and then waiting for other editors to unwittingly validate it by adding circular references. It's obvious that you're not getting this: it's time for a serious examination of your contributions to see if this is systemic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise exactly which part of the article needs a reference. The words of Rautenbach's song should provide a clue as to how engrained the name is in South African folklore. Martinvl (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]