Talk:Gold Coast

Untitled

The African Gold Coast wasn't just the name of the British colony. Among Portuguese and Dutch traders it was known by that name before it was a Britisch colony, because of the rich gold trade there. Also, I suspect that many of the current 'Gold Coasts' (though maybe not all) got their name from the African region, which had a widespread reputation. I propose moving Gold Coast (British colony) back to Gold Coast and moving the disambiguation page which is currently at Gold Coast to Gold Coast (disambiguation). — mark ✎ 12:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Gold Coast is the offical name of Australia's 7th largest city by population. Whatever it may be named after, it does have a Mayor and half a million people and so probably does deserve equal status here. In fact, I would argue that it warrents the status MORE than a five sentence article about an obsolete name for Ghana, nomatter how long the name was in use beforehand. The Australian Gold Coast might be a shithole, but that is beside the point, since to my knowledge it is the only gold coast with its own government and 500k people who write it on their mailing address (except the Côte-d'Or of course, but that's not really the same word). Scarlet 05:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there clearly are several important meanings, at the very least the Ghana colony and the present Australian cost, and links are likely to probe either way, keeping this as disambiguation page seems the only practical solution Fastifex 13:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest merging all the Gold Coast articles about Ghana into one. It is very confusing especially since at times some of these colonies coexisted. XYZ CrVo 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they are best kept separate as each is linked to by the template of showing the territories of each colonial empire. But I have made Template:Gold Coast to link them together, and a general article on the region: Gold Coast (region) --Astrokey44 10:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I support merging all the Gold Coast articles about Ghana into one, but not more than two. The one should ble about the precolonial time at the Gold Coast, before year 1821, when the english colony was established. The second should be about the English colony, the only colony of Gold Coast. The Danish Dutch did have forts for trade, in cooperation with the local rulers. The europeans payed tributes. The triangular trade was part of this. Slaves was an important trade. --Krgj (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic

I propose to move this page to Gold Coast (disambiguation), and redirect Gold Coast to Gold Coast, Queensland. This Gold Coast is by far more notable then the others, and a suitable subject for primary topic disambiguation.--cj | talk 04:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As no objections have been raised in the almost three weeks since I posted above, I'm going ahead with the move.--cj | talk 04:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this proposal. I came to this discussion page to ask why Gold Coast redirects to the city in Queensland (which I'd never heard of before). It certainly doesn't seem like a primary topic to me. I'd have thought the region in Africa was the primary meaning. Everyone's heard of that.

I propose to undo the move. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

...and now I've undone it. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move (revisited)

I came along planning to disambiguate the links to Gold Coast, but quickly noticed that virtually all the articles that link to Gold Coast (around 200 of them) actually want Gold Coast, Queensland. It seems clear that that's the primary meaning for most people, regardless of history. Therefore I propose to rename this article "Gold Coast (disambiguation)" and to redirect "Gold Coast" to "Gold Coast, Queensland". Colonies Chris (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Colonial times

The colony history of Gold Coast begin i 1821, with the English colony. Before that, we must call the precolonial time of the Gold Coast. The different european traders cooperated with the local people, payed some tributes, were allowed to stay and build their forts. It is therefore not historical correct to talk about a Danish, German, Dutch, Swedish or Portuguese colony. It is wrong. --62.101.248.112 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)--Krgj (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)