Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Indonesia and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:ID WT:INA WT:INDONESIA

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 365 days

Indonesia Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage WPT Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Indonesia and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 365 days

I just partly translated Ali Kalora. I think its a pretty big deal that he was shot to death, would it worth to try inserting it to ITN? At least at minimum we can try to make it into RD. Apologize for the tag. @Mhatopzz @Dan Carkner @Jeromi Mikhael @Gerald Waldo Luis Nyanardsan (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyanardsan: wee bit late - but RDs are “as long as the article is accepted and not full of yellow tags it’s fine” so you don’t really have to ask others before nomming RD. Juxlos (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a challenge: History_of_the_Malay_language. One big ramble of barely decipherable musings. About as anti-wikipedia as you can get. Who's game? --Merbabu (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. I don't have it on hand (borrowed it from the library before) but I would definitely recommend The Indonesian Language: Its History and Role in Modern Society by James Sneddon as a reliable source for whoever wants to tackle this. It's a book-length history of it. --Dan Carkner (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many (most?) items listed here are accompanied by their Indonesian translation. Is that really what we should be doing? I would have thought not. I did a spot check of (an admittedly small sample) of the counterpart articles of France and Germany, and translations are not provided. The following terms, amongst others, are provided with Indonesian translations: "Unity in diversity", "red and white", "Jasminum sambac", "moon orchid", "national animal", "national bird", "diamond", etc, etc. Sure, if there is a proper noun or a non-translatable item, that's fine, but most are not these cases.

And casting a wider net, even in the Germany article, a translation of German (language) as "Deutsch" is not provided. Yet across the Indonesian "project" the articles are riddled with (what I think are superfluous) translations into Indonesian. --Merbabu (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep the Indonesian name whenever there is a significant mismatch that needs a literal translation (e.g. for sang merah putih (lit. 'the honored red-white') , or in the case of a gross but established mistranslations such as "Unity in diversity" (Bhinneka Tunggal Ika which actually means 'they are different [yet] they are one'). In some cases, the English translations are simply wrong ("national bird" for satwa langka).

I agree that we should keep original language clutter to a minimum, especially when it doesn't really serve our readers. If an Indonesian equivalent is commonly mentioned in English-language sources, we can add it here for easy reference. But if it predominantly/exclusively appears in Indonesian texts (which the average non-Indo/Malay reader of en.WP can't read), it adds little information value here.

Btw, clutter just invites more clutter, see hereKawi script. –Austronesier (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what people are doing in articles about German topics, I myself am a fan of including non-English language text in parentheses where the article refers to a specific foreign language concept or proper name of a thing, even if it adds to clutter. Perhaps in this specific case it can be trimmed down a bit by using the version of the language template that does not link to the Indonesian language article every single time. As in (satwa langka) vs (Indonesian: satwa langka). Dan Carkner (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if someone group them in a single category?

• First inauguration of Suharto
• Inauguration of Abdurrahman Wahid
• Impeachment of Abdurrahman Wahid and Inauguration of Megawati Sukarnoputri
• First inauguration of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

More articles coming soon. Mhatopzz (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, there's four new figures named National Hero again Profil 4 Tokoh yang Mendapat Gelar Pahlawan Nasional 2021 this year. I've been thinking lately since many of National Hero biographies are barely start or stub, we probably could do a more organized backlog drive. As in, having barnstar as reward for it or something. It would be good if there's incentives for members of Wikiproject Indonesia to do deep researches on them and make this actual annual backlog drive like some big Wikiprojects did.

There's a dire need for reliable sources for these articles from books or historical records outside of articles about them in news when they are given the title. Given the fact that these figure's historical records and biographies were researched by TP2G in regional and national level consist of historians and actual academicians, Im sure we could find decent amount of information about them if we look hard enough.

What do you all think? Sorry for the tag @Mhatopzz @Dan Carkner @Jeromi Mikhael @Juxlos @Merbabu Nyanardsan (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I will leave it to him @The man from Gianyar. Mhatopzz (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently juggling three different articles to work on, Ali Sastroamidjojo, History of Bandung, and Ali Wardhana, but I might be able to do Usmar Ismail, but that's pretty much it, @User:Mhatopzz @User:Nyanardsan The man from Gianyar (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Tombolotutu [id], there are at least two good sources:

• Suwondo, Bambang (1984). Sejarah Daerah Sulawesi Tengah. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Kebudayaan. (Bab V, B. Penyelenggaraan Hidup Dalam Masyarakat, 3. Gerakan perlawanan, p. 74–77)
• Nourse, J. W. (1994). "Textbook Heroes and Local Memory: Writing the Right History in Central Sulawesi." Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice (35), 102–121.

If time allows, I'll try to write up something. I have some affinity to the topic since the Lauje language of Tinombo (Parigi Moutong Regency) is part of my wider research area, and I have thus become familiar with the ramifications of power between inner hill people, indigenous coastal groups, and non-indigenous coastal groups in that region. The article by Nourse gives an interesting alternative view to the official heroic historiography: as in other known cases, the non-indigenous aristocrat Tombolotutu turned into a rebel primarily not for idealistic reasons, but because the Dutch (supported by the indigenous elite) gave their favor to one of his rivals in the succession to the title or raja in the petty Kingdom of Moutong. –Austronesier (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try with Aji Muhammad Idris myself since Im quite familiar with history of East Kalimantan. Also btw what about establishing barnstar for this Wikiproject? Nyanardsan (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules on barnstars - you can award someone a barnstar simply for existing, unless you want to design a, say “National Barnstar of Indonesia”. Juxlos (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say 17th-19th century local heroes is my area of knowledge, unfortunately. Juxlos (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be trying to write a bunch of Indonesia-related articles for Wikipedia Asian Month 2021 anyways so I don't mind tackling the remaining one Raden Arya Wangsakara, even if he's not my usual type of research it shouldn't be too hard to summarize what is in print about him. Dan Carkner (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was starting to work based on the ID Wikipedia article about him but unless I'm mistaken it seems to be copy pasted directly from the Kompas article it cites as its only source. Sigh! Dan Carkner (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article at Aria Wangsakara. There really wasn't anything about him in any of the databases I have access to; just some Indonesian books of dubious quality and news articles from the recent announcements. Dan Carkner (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - i picked up on this edit the other day. It seems there may be more.

In essence, it seems in this edit that Dutch has been favoured over English. Ie, Jambi Residency has been converted to Djambi Residency. Or perhaps the argument is that we use Djambi as this was the name at the time. I'm leaning towards favouring the modern name, but I'm interested in other arguments. --Merbabu (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The basic rule is: we do as reliable English-language sources do. A quick scan through commons:Category:Old maps of Southeast Asia indicates that English from back then also seems to favour Jambi. There's even an incidental Jambee, but let's not go there. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. There is an important distinction in your reply: "English back then". For historical entities, should we be using English from back then, or contemporary English? Although in this the Jambi/Djambi case, you note back then also favours Jambi. Interesting. --Merbabu (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I read this last night, I looked up on Google Books for both spellings and automatically set the upper date limit to 1945. I guess that's our nostalgic inner self. But actually, this cutoff is not supported by our naming conventions. Of course, modern English-language sources have equal weight as long as they discuss the historical entities. And if modern sources retroactively use modern spellings even though contemporary English-language sources back then followed the Dutch (or Indonesian Republican) spelling, we should give preference to usage in modern sources. –Austronesier (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who changed from Jambi to Djambi, because it seemed to me it would never have been written Jambi in its time, owing to it being changed because of spelling reforms after 1948. I found relatively little attention was paid to residencies in English sources and those that did were inconsistent with spelling. Didn't even think of historical English maps. At the moment it was the only Residency that had its own stub and I thought if I was going to create more it would be consistent to use their name on paper from the time in the same way we have Kyiv the city, but Kiev Governorate, and so on. And to distinguish the historical geographic unit from the current day one. But whatever people think is the best way to do it I'm willing to abide by going forward. Dan Carkner (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks, no one has seemed to have any comment, so I will continue naming the obsolete residencies with their Dutch spelling. That is the approach used by Cribb in his historical atlas of Indonesia: "I have generally preserved colonial-era spelling for Dutch administrative names, mainly because many of them have no contemporary equivalent, and they cannot be modernized in the way that place names can. Thus, because Groote Oost has to be preserved in its original spelling, so too are the Lampongsche Districten and Bantam, insofar as these were administrative divisions." p. 10 Cribb, R. B. (2000). Historical atlas of Indonesia. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. ISBN 0-8248-2111-4. I think there is some logic in using it as a distinction from their present day counterpart even as those will invariably be mentioned in the intro of every residency article. Dan Carkner (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks on Wikimedia images of Jakarta are continuing: see this latest Wikilawyering assault. If this continues, there will be no images of Jakarta at all soon, and no point in making any further contributions. Any thoughts @Mhatopzz @Dan Carkner @Jeromi Mikhael @Juxlos @Merbabu @JarrahTree Davidelit (Talk) 04:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. Deletion on commons is not a vote, rather we need good policy based arguments. As far as I understand the copy right law in this case, the deletionists have a point. As crazy as the result seems to be. --Merbabu (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, bizarre to me as well but I do not know enough about the copyright rules to contradict them. The idea that you cannot post your own photo of a national landmark where major events happen...? So if it was in the backdrop of a photo of an event ? Sigh... --Dan Carkner (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in the backdrop, it might probably fall under "de minimis" which is cited in the deletion request page. In any case, I am clueless too: how bizarre, how bizarre... –Austronesier (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soon many more articles will be bereft of pictures. There is no consensus on the Freedom of Panorama (see this and this), but the destruction is still underway. The problem is the lack of admins in the project to fight our corner. Might be time to find another hobby... Davidelit (Talk) 04:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could always upload a low-resolution copy locally to just en-wiki under the fair use principle. The problem is not a lack of allies, it's simply the Indonesian law versus the Commons principle of files having no restrictions for re-use. You do not want to get into the situation where you use a file and years later are sued for not adhering strictly to the creator/architect's copyright terms. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

• The recently created en.wp article Soepardjo, on the Indonesian language Wikipedia is id:Soepardjo (lahir 1929)
• The en.wp article Supardjo (created 13 August 13 2010), on the Indonesian language Wikipedia is id:Soepardjo (lahir 1923)

They are obviously two different people.

WP:ID-SPELLING suggests that most recent spelling of their names should be used. Given that both Soepardjo-s were born in the 1920s, it would appear to me that Van Ophuijsen Spelling System for the digraph "oe" might apply here.

Your opinions? Is there some established policy or guideline I have missed here? Or something else? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - very miscible. Juxlos (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An awkward case. Both are lesser-known figures so I don't think the old/new spelling issue would be the most important factor nor would be the case that one should have one spelling and the other have the other one. Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Disambiguating they suggest adding year of birth if two people had the same occupation. On the other hand one time I wrote an article about Zinovy Shulman the Soviet singer as there was already the article about Zinovii Shulman the scientist. It's purely arbitrary which article has which spelling, as it is just a slightly different way of transliterating Russian, but in the years since no one has cared.Dan Carkner (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cases where if you don't do it nobody notices and if you do it nobody notices still. Juxlos (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Persaudaraan Setia Hati Terate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone work out what is going on at this article. There are a couple of new editors with differing claims about the leader and the official website of the group. Presumably this is a factional dispute. A brief note by an onlooker is on talk, and I saw it at a request for protection (WP:RFPP). Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Yeah, a leadership dispute that got all the way to the Supreme Court of Indonesia. Ketua DPD RI dampingi PSHT temui Ketum KONI untuk selesaikan polemik Juxlos (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I'm hoping you will know what should be done in the article. If there is a credible dispute, the best thing might to remove text about the leader or the website? Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably mention the leader based on the court decision and then note that he faced a leadership challenge, mentioning the court case. Juxlos (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Torajan people for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone decided that Sarah Azhari page must be deleted. Thoughts?

• I personally support the deletion, the nominator has a point. She is mostly known for her controversy, most of the results are gossip pieces/attention-grabbing infotaiments which have questionable quality, the source in current article is not any better Nyanardsan (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• hi, dont know if you read the new resources i did find, let me know what you think.

^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} Profil Sarah Azhari, Wajahnya Tetap Menawan di Usia 40-an, Kini Hijrah ke LA Amerika Serikat Amoeba69th (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CANVAS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: Be assured that the regulars of this project are not easily impressed by non-neutral notifications. Most of these actually turn into a boomerang in the shape of !votes that diametrically go against the intentions of the OP :) –Austronesier (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

read and got it andythegrump and thanks austronesier for reviewing the sources as non-neutral, right ? Amoeba69th (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sjafruddin Prawiranegara/archive1. It would be great to get more folks familiar with Indonesia topics to take a look at it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sarah Azhari. Peaceray (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across to article of De facto Republic of Indonesia. IMO, it is unnecessary content forking. The content on that page is mainly copied from Linggadjati Agreement and almost no information on Republic of Indonesia at that time. Do we really need that page? Can we just merge/redirect or propose Afd on that article. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article looks like some NICA guy wrote it. Juxlos (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So? AfD.. it is? Ckfasdf (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like a De facto United States because they weren’t recognized by the British between 1776 and 1783 so yeah AFD. Juxlos (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought as well. Oh well, AfD created. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ckfasdf (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Durian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pia Zebadiah Bernadeth#Requested move 30 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, calling active contributors on WP:Indonesia to edit this ongoing event. I think this time we should not repeat what we did with Omnibus Law protest and actually aiming for ITN, as it is widespread enough. Nyanardsan (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has had almost very little international coverage, and in any case the article is not very well written. The last Indonesian story to feature on the BBC app appears to be the birth of a Sumatran Rhino. Perhaps that could be nominated for "ITN" instead? Davidelit (Talk) 14:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTSOAPBOX (just to clarify, I'm not talking about the rhino). –Austronesier (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Java (programming language)#Requested move 16 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Certes (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The island is the primary topic. There's even a guideline/policy that says page views are irrelevant. Can't find it right now. Ridiculous. And island of 130 m people is not primary topic? --Merbabu (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This again ? And you are quite right, it's absurd to say it would not be primary. --Dan Carkner (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there are now at least 2 Multatuli Museums with essentially the same name: the one in Amsterdam which is described at Multatuli Museum and the one opened in 2018 in Banten which is at https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_Multatuli on the Indonesian wikipedia, but not yet on the EN wikipedia. Any thoughts on how to have articles about both? If the NL one is older (unsure of the opening date) and has the author's personal papers, perhaps it is a more primary topic, and the Indonesian one should be the one have some kind of parenthetical disambiguation in the title? --Dan Carkner (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say both getting parentheses are fair enough, since it’s not like either are massive museums at the tier of say the Louvre. Juxlos (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly go along with that .. what do you propose? (Amsterdam) and (Indonesia) ? --Dan Carkner (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Netherlands) and (Indonesia) feel more fitting, not like there’s plenty of Multatuli museums in either country. Juxlos (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, with a disambiguation page at the current location? I think that makes sense. Will double check article titling guidelines just to make sure before doing so. --Dan Carkner (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There is now my new article at Multatuli Museum (Indonesia), the old article at Multatuli Museum (Netherlands) and a disambiguation at Multatuli Museum. Dan Carkner (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that that the content of Leti Islands (or Letti Islands) should be about islands (and in particular one island) with a name spelt the exact same way (with the same number of "t"s) -- and that if the other spelling isn't a mere mistake, that there should be a redirect from it. Which spelling is preferable? I've no idea. (Normally I'd look in the references; but no usable reference is provided.) Over to you. -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is your question about the spelling specifically? I hadn't heard of these islands but maybe there are two co-existing variant spellings. When I search news sites like Tempo or Kompas for "Kepulauan Letti" I get under a dozen results and none for "Kepulauan Leti". conversely on this educational repository I get 2 results for "Kepulauan Leti" and none for "Kepulauan Letti". Likewise general google results about 5500 for "Kepulauan Leti" and around 2500 for "Kepulauan Letti". I would say they are variants and that neither is canonically correct, just my guess. I will redirect from whichever is not in the article title. --Dan Carkner (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Carkner, yes, about the spelling specifically. But conceivably each spelling was the sole, indisputed spelling for the name in this or that relevant Indonesian language. I could of course have read up on the matter of appropriate nomenclature of Indonesian placenames, but the minutes add up. -- Hoary (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to official map of Indonesia, provided by Indonesian Geospatial Information Agency, the Name of Island is "Letti Island" and it is part of "Letti Islands" (with double "t"). Ckfasdf (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it is, good idea to look there. Perhaps the article should be moved to Letti Islands with the redirect from Leti Islands, and a mention somewhere in the intro paragraph about the fact the alternate spelling appears sometimes. Dan Carkner (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dan Carkner (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good sample of the kind of possibility that made me hesitate and defer to the Indonesia-knowledgable. I've no particular objection to the unquestioning adherence to prescriptions/preferences of the Indonesian Geospatial Information Agency; but elsewhere in the vastness of Wikipedia, state-prescribed names and spellings count for nothing and what matters is the name, and its spelling, most commonly used within English-language text. -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have always thought that "Letti" is an outdated Dutch/colonial spelling. I've done some work (but NB not fieldwork) about the languages of Southwest Maluku, and always used the spelling "Leti" for people, langugage, island and island group. My colleague Aone van Engelenhoven, who has family ties to the island, always writes "Leti" AFAIK. But yes, the official spelling of the district (= island) is kecamatan Letti, as I have learned today.

In a Google Books search (only 21st century), "Leti Islands" by far outweighs "Letti Islands". So there's a discrepancy WP:COMMONNAME vs. official spelling in Indonesian sources. –Austronesier (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badan bahasa also list the language as "Letti". So yea.. It's WP:COMMONNAME vs. official spelling. Should we open up WP:REQMOVE on talk page? Ckfasdf (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Well I'm open to whatever people want to do. IMO where it comes down to just one letter of spelling in the difference, and that both are present as redirects and in the first paragraph, it doesn't see like a big issue. But maybe there is some significance that I am not aware of. Dan Carkner (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with the current solution (= Letti Islands). I'd probably start to feel strongly about things when an editor suddenly came up with the idea to move Leti language to Letti language for "consistency" ;) –Austronesier (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also good with either solutions. However, since now we know that "Letti" is the official name and "Leti" is the common name in English. IMO, we should mentioned both names in the article (islands, island and language). Ckfasdf (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this edit on my watchlist today by User:Ramsnet. I am not trying to challenge this particular move but I do wonder if we can discuss and possibly amend the wikiproject style guide to say that historical proper nouns may be an exception to always using modern Indonesian spelling (depending of course on what the common name is in English as well). To me this would mainly apply to people, companies, or obsolete places, especially ones that predate the independence era. I would suggest that it is roughly equivalent for an article title to have the name spelled historically or with a modern correction, and that an article doesn't have to be moved to "fix" it from one to the other just on principle alone--as with American and British English spellings on Wikipedia, that moving between them does not really serve much. Thoughts? --Dan Carkner (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that it also came up here in a discussion not too long ago and that I may have been alone on this perspective of things. But if there really is a policy to move personal names to modern spellings there is quite a long list out there and it may not always correspond to modern English usage (in some cases it does). --Dan Carkner (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dan, I'm quite new here so I didn't realise there was a style guide for pre-independence names as you said. I thought since the pages Sukarno, Suharto, Sudirman, etc. uses the new spelling, it is the consensus. The name "Cipto Mangunkusumo" is also used as a street name and a hospital in Jakarta, so I believe it is more commonly known.

I'd be down to change it back if there is a style guide to follow.

Cheers Ramsnet (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And it's not up to me of course, just saying my opinion. I think you did OK in this case because as you say the name is pretty commonly seen under the modernized spelling, we get 20 times more google results from the modern spelling (maybe because of the place names too). If it was a lesser known historical figure I tend to use the old fashioned spelling especially if it appears in English language secondary sources with that spelling. The style guide can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Indonesia-related articles and does indeed currently say to use the modernized spelling, although as we know with the spelling reforms in Indonesian it was not always applied to personal names during the lifetime of the person. --Dan Carkner (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I initailly wanted to propose this for merge, but given the fact that merging requests has always been slow and that this merge is most likely quite controversial/complicated and need more discussion, I would like to ask other editors here first.

We have separate articles on Weh Island and Sabang, Aceh. And Sabang, for some reason, has its article with prefix "Aceh" on it.

So my question is:

1. Since the entirety of Weh Island is basically under Sabang city, and using other similiar examples such as Tarakan and Ternate (both also does not only include their respective main island but also smaller islands surrounding it), and also that because Indonesian media often referred Weh Island as Sabang city instead of the island itself, shouldnt this mean Weh Island should be merged to the city article? If the city shouldnt be merged because that the city name differs from the island itself (even though media often got mixed Sabang and the island together), does this mean case like Tual should have separate article about Dullah Island? And since the city is centered on the island, it would be just same content mostly.
2. Sabang is the main topic, so why the city needs ",Aceh" prefix?
3. If nothing merged, where to draw the line so that its not the same content or just very identical content between Sabang city and Weh Island itself?

Nyanardsan (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As short comment on point 2: Sabang is a dab, and at least the Sabang in India is more populous than Sabang in Aceh. So it will be hard to argue for the latter as primary topic without disambiguator. –Austronesier (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, will you all correct the Van Pemboewan translation? ▪ ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 23:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can. But may I ask why this district is considered notable? Not trying to get rid of it I just don't see it explained yet. Perhaps if I look up some sources I will understand. --Dan Carkner (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK so. I have not touched your article yet. I am willing to copy edit it but first I think it needs to be focused and explained better. When I search Delpher for Pemboean or Pemboewan there are almost no results - just random mentions of a river in Borneo. That is not encouraging for something that is supposed to be a historically notable territory. Could I find evidence about that early Dutch territory under a different name perhaps? And then the article implies that it existed until 1946 - is this true? Why so few results on Delpher? Sorry, just trying to sort this out. --Dan Carkner (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the content could be merged to Seruyan Regency instead? Nyanardsan (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am generally in favour of allowing articles on almost any obscure topic on Wikipedia, if we cannot find any sources about this historical territory that may be a better idea. Fazoffic, do you have any comments about this? What made you decide to create it? Can you see finding some sources to explain its notability/significance? --Dan Carkner (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fazoffic: As a first measure, I recommend to move the page to Pemboewan, and have the residual redirect Van Pemboewan speedily deleted. "Van" is the Dutch equivalent of the preposition "of", so this weird page title is like having an article Of Ireland from the full name "Republic of Ireland".

I'm still going through Dutch sources from the first half of the 20th century. Present-day Seruyan was part of the "Onderafdeeling Sampit" during the Dutch era. So far I have found two attestations of the administrative unit (with the more accurate spelling "Pemboeang"): in this source, the "district Pemboeang" is mentioned, while here, Pemboeang is listed as one of the "plaasten" (places) in the "Onderafdeeling Sampit". –Austronesier (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, I have a friend from Hanau (no, not Hanau), so I am a bit familiar with the region and its regional language (bahasa Pembuang). –Austronesier (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my dumb. Apparently, there is loads of stuff in Delpher :) –Austronesier (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I would say Pemboewan with the "w" seems to have the least hits on delpher of any of the spellings, so it should probably not be used in the article title unless we find some clear reason to. --Dan Carkner (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Carkner, @Austronesier, @Nyanardsan: I created this page because it is part of the history of Indonesia (the history of the Seruyan district to be precise). Why not merged with the Dutch East Indies? As you read on Page Van Pemboewan,this area was formed before the Dutch East Indies. So it is counted as a Colony Alone.

~Thank you ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 23:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Apologize for asking this, but if hypothetically, if someone going to expand Seruyan Regency article (which I hope I will, eventually), then much of regency's history section will include majority if not all contents currently present in Pemboewan article.

Doesnt this seem like an unnecessary content forking, where instead the article about the historical district itself could instead be included at current's regency history section? Nyanardsan (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier, I Value Your Opinion. Looks like your recommendation is good. I would Consider Moving That Page To '''Pemboewan''' ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 23:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Sources For This District Very Hard to Find. Adding Primary Source? No, Wikipedia will not allow that. ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 23:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's very difficult to find descriptions of in books it may be difficult for it to pass notability on Wikipedia. OK, so ideally should this article be about a geographic place ? Should it only be about the indirectly governed early territory before it was amalgamated into later district ? Or should it be about the totality of what happened in this geographic area from the start to end of Dutch rule, across several administrative reorganizations? Dan Carkner (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Carkner....Perhaps ideally, this article is about a colony that is considered to be part of the Dutch East Indies (actually there are many other areas in Indonesia which were actually colonies but were included as colonies of the Dutch East Indies). It's Not About Geography, because There's No Geo Element in this article. The Sources I Mean Secondary Source are Digital Sources, and These are the only 7 I have found.

I just hope you can understand that this article is about the history of a place that is considered Remote in our area (Indonesia).

~Thank You ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 05:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish there were other digital resources to add to this article. Maybe @Dan Carkner, and @Austronesier, Can Help? ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 05:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fazoffic

It is not as remote as it seems if we are talking current-day Seruyan Regency which has numerous detailed sources and news reports both local and national. But we are talking about the historical Pemboewan district, which arguably the predecessor of Seruyan Regency, we got far less sources and coverage of it. It's less about the remoteness/whether the place is remote or not (which I would argue it isnt that remote) since today's Seruyan has fairly numerous and detailed sources while the historical district which was the predecessor of the regency has little, and they are essentially located in the same place but different historical period. It seems like it would be better if the content in current Pemboewan article to be merged to the Seruyan Regency. Nyanardsan (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with @Nyanardsan, we really should avoid to create redundancies and content forks. Either we keep the information focused in Seruyan Regency, or we properly expand Pemboewan (ideally moved to a more commonly encountered name) if notability criteria apply. For the latter, I see a major problem, since it is hard from the sources even just to find out the actual scope of "Pemboewan"/"Pemboeang": was it really the predecessor of the entire kabupaten Seruyan, or maybe just confined to the central area around Hanau and Seruyan Hilir? –Austronesier (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see on the Pemboewan page, the map of Pemboewan area was created by Albenddove Ardillesiansy and Djaja Bhaei Kardjawindar. And I got this map from Tarwidi Tamasaputra, the former deputy regent of Seruyan Regency. References that I can also come from him and because I also helped him for this. Regarding these two people, I don't know anything about them. Tarwidi Tamasaputra also did not provide me with any information regarding the 2 people.

He (Tarwidi Tamasaputra) said that the current form and borders of Seruyan Regency originate from Pemboeang/Pemboewan and have never changed until now. ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 01:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier, @Nyanardsan, I suggest that we focus first on Seruyan Regency because that page is still very lacking. Maybe Copying from idwiki? (I'm not sure it's Allowed). ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 01:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fazoffic

I have plan on that article soon, probably after I finish some of my other to do lists. I recommend when expanding regencies/cities article try to standarize the sections, example can be seen like in South Barito Regency or Sangihe Islands Regency.

Have a nice day~ Nyanardsan (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

👍 OK! ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 02:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fazoffic: If present-day Seruyan covers the same area as historical Pemboeang/Pemboewan, not even the well-loved policy WP:GEOLAND supports having two articles about the same thing. We can have a separate article about the historical entity if there is WP:SIGCOV (which I can't see in spite of numerous passing mentions in old sources), of if the article Seruyan Regency is large enough to warrant a WP:SIZESPLIT (which also is not the case).

Btw, are you sure about the spelling of Albenddove Ardillesiansy? It looks like something went wrong just like in "Van Pemboewan". –Austronesier (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised if that last remark is the result of an auto-translation. The rest of the article was obviously machine-translated too (e.g. "Kampung Pembuang Hulu" became "Upstream Disposal Village"!). I tried fixing some of the blatant errors, but there are so many issues due to misinterpreting old Dutch documents via Indonesian into machine-translated English... --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

😁 ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 00:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I leave this article to you all. I'm busy at Idwiki so I don't have time to take care of articles on Enwiki. Oh yes, for @HyperGaruda, Tarwidi Tamasaputra once said:

“	His name is Pemboewan or Pemboeang, Completely Onderdistrictshoofd van Pemboewan. Onderdistrict because it was under the direct control of the VOC, Shoofd because it was ruled by Shoofd (Kjai's assistant), Van because it was located in Pambuang, Pemboewan (or Pemboeang) is the name, Taken from Pambuang Banjar.	”
— Tarwidi Tamasaputra

I feel lazy to translate it myself so I use machine translation (and because my English is only Level 4....Hahaha). So I Hope All Can Understand This. ~Thank you _{[translated automatically by Translator Machine]} ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 02:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK well ... if you do not plan to develop it I think whatever historical facts should be put into the regency article and this one should be closed down. As suggested above. And by the way, I think machine translation has its uses on wikipedia, don't feel bad about that, but after that errors also need to be able to be identified and fixed. Or else we may be left with information that is wrong at worst or difficult to understand at best. --Dan Carkner (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“

and this one should be closed down

”

You Mean, Deleted?

Btw... I'm not sure that Ujung Pandaran is not included in the Pemboewan area. ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 18:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, Just my Dumb. Ujung Pandaran is Not Part of Pemboewan but a Part of "Kewedanan Sampit Barat". ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 18:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“

I leave this article to you all

”

Allright... I'll take back my words. I Will Visit This Article Once a Week.

~Thank you ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 18:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've just created an English Wikipedia article on Rahmah El Yunusiyah, a freedom fighter and activist for women's education who lived from 1900-1969. The article is sparse at the moment, but the Indonesian-language version is a featured article there. It's long, detailed, and well-cited. However, I don't speak or read Indonesian, so I'm hesitant to rely on Google's translating abilities. If anyone here is capable in Indonesian, I would greatly appreciate your help in expanding the page using content from Indonesian Wikipedia. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look later. By the way, I wonder if the definitely article "el" in the name should be lower case in the article title. At least in Wikipedia:Arabic names they have them as lower case in their examples. (edit: and now I see here at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Arabic#Capitalization that it specifies to have it lowercase too.) --Dan Carkner (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I followed what was used on Indonesian and French Wikipedia, but if we have an applicable standard here on English Wikipedia, that takes priority. On the other hand, it's not really an Arabic name, but a Muslim name from Indonesia. The Vreede-DeSteurs book, which uses an older/outdated transliteration scheme, calls her "Rahma El Junusia". Not sure what the right course is but don't mind at all if the page is moved. Thanks for taking a look! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Google books search yields mixed results, with maybe a slight majority being lower case. My feeling is to follow the above style guide on Arabic-derived names for want of any Indonesia-specific guidance on Wikipedia, but it's certainly not a big deal either way. As for the content I will take a look maybe tomorrow and see if I can dig up some more references, in addition to assessing what can be brought over from the ID version. Dan Carkner (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind - I did end up moving it to having the lower case article per the style guide. Anyhow there's still a lot that could be added to this article. I'm going through some databases as I have time and see what citations I can come up with. Most of it seems to be about her early education work but I'm curious to find more sources about her post-independence political career. Dan Carkner (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! Thanks for the work you’re doing to expand the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia East, South East Asia and the Pacific also known as ESEAP will be having an in-person conference in Sydney, Australia on November 18-20. ESEAP is a regional collaborative composed of nationalities & Wikimedia affiliates of Indonesia, Taiwan, Australia, Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Vietnam. Membership also include nationalities and informal communities of Brunei, Cambodia, China, Japan, Laos, Macau, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, and Timor Leste.

The goals for the conference are:

• Strategic discussions: ESEAP Hub governance, process of moving from an informal group to more formal structure aligned with the Hubs/Minimum Criteria for Pilots
• Partnership, Tools & Skills: Outreach and community collaboration support networks; building a network of skill sets so that communities in the region can provide extra outreach support and collaboration across the region; and
• Leadership development through building networks that encourage new and wider diversity of participants to enable future growth

For more information, please visit the conference page.

Scholarship application (subsidized air fare, accommodation, and relevant fees) is ongoing. You may go to the scholarship page to know more. Deadline for scholarship application is on 24 July (Sunday) at 12:00 UTC (see your local time) .

We also call for volunteers to the following committees:

• Scholarship committee
• Program submissions review committee
• Communications committee
• Onsite & technical volunteers

For inquiries, please reach us at eseap.confwikimedia.org.au.

Thank you! --Exec8 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I found some recent updates regarding this article (although it is still primary source).

• Samuda (or Semoeda) Allegedly was once the capital of Pemboewan during the reign of Djaja Ngagara. however, the government only runs for One Month.
• Ujung Pandaran is suspected to have been part of Pemboewan during Raden Moeda's government. The separation of Pandaran from Pemboewan and its integration into the Kewedanan Sampit is still being debated.
• There is a piece of land in the northern part of Seruyan (now part of Melaw Regency, West Kalimantan Province) which is suspected to have been part of Pemboewan at the beginning of the tenure of Kjai Ngabei Djaja-negara.

I have updated the regional map file, and this time the map is my own creation. ~Thank You ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 22:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fazoffic: Probably you can imagine how eager we are to see the citation of the primary source you mention, especially if we really are supposed to give you any response here. Thank you. –Austronesier (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Otherwise, my primary source says that Pemboewan was a district in what is today Merauke. Juxlos (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're starting to think weird about this. well, at least I gave an update. It's up to you how you want to respond. ~Thank you ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 14:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mataram

Mataram Kingdom

Mataram_Sultanate

House_of_Mataram

I really wonder do we need all of this? I am quite concerned that other regular editors who come here might offer some comment. I post without fear or favour of any particular point of view, but feel that we might have more than we need... I look forward to other editors ideas. JarrahTree 12:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you think they may have to be merged? That would become a huge article, likely too big. The kingdom and the sultanate should remain separate, considering almost six centuries are in between them. Then there is Mataram (city) for current-day information. With three similarly titled articles, the disambiguation page is also necessary. I suppose you could argue that House of Mataram might be better off merged with the sultanate, but that is the only feasible merger I see. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with HyperGaruda. There's room for different articles relating to entities sharing the same geographic space but not political or temporal continuity. Dan Carkner (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wow we are being cautious in our wording about it - house of mataram is simply repeating information already existing and is not even a merge possibility, it is an obvious pinch/copy from the id project - with no references in sight, and assertions that exist already in other articles, and in any sense not a beneficial addition to the project - one way to see when this project goes quiet that someone has not put up a prod (yet) JarrahTree 01:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sukarno - Soekarno has been shifted so many times since the start of the article, usually by editors who have never consulted/discussed, and in many cases who have never been seen again.

Please if you are on a watch of this page - it would be good to have more than two other editors to arrive and join in and decide that the protection of the article against the constant shifting back and forwards... JarrahTree 14:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page log, this happened on two occasions. I was surprised to find only one revision in the history of Soekarno, but that enables anyone, even without move rights, to overwrite the redirect and rename Sukarno to Soekarno. As such, I made an edit, which should prevent this and make a move discussion the only non-admin way to rename the page. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my apology, I am probably remembering the change of spelling in the lead sentence, as well as the moves, so you are correct... The page has since been protected for the moves by admins only. Thanks for checking my rather grandiose claim, appreciated. JarrahTree 03:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, iam back again (but, with a new topic). Please correct the automatic translation of Inlands Bestuur and Afdeling, just that. ~Thank you ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 13:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Independence Day (Indonesia) would feature on Wikipedia's main page in the "On this day" section if it was up to scratch. It has a maintenance template because it is poorly referenced. Maybe someone from this project could tidy up the article by adding references where appropriate. Once that's done, please ping me and I will elevate the article from ineligible to eligible for August 17. Schwede66 22:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of English is poor, and it is full of peacock terms, so needs a lot of work. The likelihood of any changes being reverted by the usual nationalistic editors is so high, that it's probably not worth the bother. Like the articles about Indonesian TV stations and football teams, attempts at improvements are likely to be a waste of time. Davidelit (Talk) 03:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After chancing upon an early revision of this article during New Page Patrol work, I expanded the article based on online media sources (I am a London, UK-based Wikipedian). I think it might be further expanded/improved by other editors with greater/local knowledge of Indonesia, etc. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before I finished my drafts about the history of Indonesia around the National Revolution period, recently I have googled about "Peristiwa 4 Januari 1946" translated as '4 January 1946 event" which refers to the relocation of Indonesian national capital from Jakarta to Yogyakarta in 1946. I would like to know if this would be suitable for an independent article or not. Please let me know if anyone is interested about this topic and discuss it to decide whether this should be an independent article or merge the topic with another article. Mhatopzz (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of on my summer vacation from editing and not very active right now but does it need its own article? Can it be a mention in the articles about Yogyakarta and the National Revolution? However, if you can find an angle I just wanted to say that the title "4 January 1946 event" sounds a bit strange in English. Dan Carkner (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this a noticeboard that used to have at least 3 or 4 editors turn up - maybe they are now all elsewhere...

During the National Revolution - a number of events occurred that could have extra articles, relative to the level of importance and context of the process of the revolution. The move to Yogya looks like something that can be added to other articles, and the I agree with Dan - the title is a no-go for sure. JarrahTree 01:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A prolific LTA with dozens of socks and a massive CIR-problem has removed the redirect target of Mount Ophir to Mount Ledang (which indeed was called "Mount Ophir" by the Brits) and created a weird stub that conflates the Ophir legend with "Mount Ophir" which occasionally appeared in 19th century maps as an alternative name of another mountain, viz. Gunung Pasaman in West Sumatra (mentioned e.g. here[1] by Alexander v. Humboldt).

My idea to resolve this clusterfuck is to create a stub for Gunung Pasaman (or Mount Pasaman?), retarget Mount Ophir back to Mount Ledang as primary target, and add a {{redirect}}-hatnote in Mount Ledang pointing to Mount Pasaman. Can someone help out with good sources for the geo stub? The maps added by the LTA are actually nice so, we just need a few modern sources with some geodata of the mountain. Austronesier (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A good first step would have been blanking the article - it’s a sock created article so no issue. Helps that they cite sources that -obviously- do not mention anything about the claims. Weird folks finding out some coincidental names with old manuscripts will always plague the site, unfortunately. Juxlos (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a simple and legitimate first step, I've added the common historical name of Mt. Ledang to the lead, otherwise the redirect appears unmotivated. I rarely create new articles, so I'll put Mount Pasaman aside until there's an unexpected surge of my lazy wiki-ambitions. –Austronesier (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:It's Showtime Indonesia#Requested move 31 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks, the first line of Batavia, Dutch East Indies says "Batavia, also called Batauia in the city's Malay vernacular..." That phrase has been translated into the ID-wiki article too. Is that correct? I haven't seen that spelling before, tried doing various searches for "Kota Batauia" or in Indonesian online digital collections, didn't have much luck. Specific search for Batauia on google books mostly brought up Latin results for some reason. I've heard Betawi of course, but any thoughts on the above? Does it merit being in the first line of the article spelled that way if it doesn't seem to be showing up a lot? It's true that spelling has not been standardized for most of the history of the city, but I would still expect more results... Dan Carkner (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that is was called so "in the city's Malay vernacular" is pure nonsense. The primary source is a Dutch text from 1628, and it contains another variant "Battauia" (corresponding to "Battavia" in many other old sources). Variation between "u" and "v" is also found in Dutch text about the ancient Batavi, there is even an old text that refers to Holland as "battauia"&source=bl&ots=0-dbROgmhs&sig=ACfU3U1zAFfArFrPwi2-qu9Fn8txxUyJNQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwweX7roP6AhVv_7sIHQP5A3M4FBDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q="battauia"&f=false "Battauia". I will remove it as an ephemeral spelling undue for the lede. See also @Juxlos' comment in the Mouth Ophir section above, which is a spot-on description of what has happened in Batavia, Dutch East Indies. –Austronesier (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for looking into it and dealing with it. --Dan Carkner (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Alfred Russel Wallace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the article about Joko Widodo so that 'Jokowi' is used to refer to him, because that's what most Indonesian sources seem to do and the better English language newspapers too.

I've noticed that articles about other Indonesian figures have similar problems. For example, the article about Abdurrahman Wahid uses 'Wahid' throughout, although that's the name of his father. People seem to think that 'Widodo' and 'Wahid' are surnames, despite the notes at the top of the articles. Strangely, the Javanese and Indonesian Wikipedia articles on Abdurrahman Wahid also partially use the name 'Wahid'.

What is going on here? Could someone with knowledge of Indonesia chip in? Is my thinking correct that the nicknames 'Jokowi' and 'Gus Dur' are the correct names to use in the articles?

Suggestion: should the template {{Indonesian name}} be updated so it explicitly states which name should be used in public discourse to refer to a person? This would at least help editors like me to clean up after other editors' mistakes. —caoimhinoc (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian here. Didn't know before there's a project specific for Indonesia.

Back to the topic. At least, in Indonesia, we are more often refer to public figure with nickname or firstname instead of surname. For the Indonesian Wikipedia articles, I cannot guarantee that this happened but there's a chance of us translating the article from English instead of writing it from scratch. I never see Gus Dur referred as Wahid in Indonesian newspapers. Jvprawn (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the existing template is sufficient - see Megawati Sukarnoputri and Amir Sjarifuddin. One possible format for the Joko Widodo article is {{Indonesian name|patronymic = no|Widodo |Jokowi}} Davidelit (Talk) 05:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Indonesian name|patronymic = no|Widodo |Jokowi}} gives the output:

In this Indonesian name, there is no family name nor a patronymic, and the person should be referred to by the given name, Jokowi.

But 'Jokowi' isn't his given name, it's his nickname. I think it would be sensible to have the note explain why 'Jokowi' is used in the article (if that's what is decided). Something like:

In this Indonesian name, there is no family name nor a patronymic, and the person should be referred to by the given name, Joko Widodo. He is also commonly referred to by his nickname. Jokowi. caoimhinoc (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The Indonesian/Javanese articles were likely translated from English.

So in an English language article, would you personally prefer to see 'Jokowi' or 'Joko Widodo' or does it not matter that much? —caoimhinoc (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Komodo Dragon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. CMD (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]