Category talk:Volcanoes of Java/Archive 1
Category_talk:Volcanoes_of_Java/Archive_1[edit]
Improper tone[edit]
This article is written in the form of a narrative, improper in an encyclopaedic setting. Replaced the very general cleanup tag with a specific tone one. --Joshua Boniface 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree - but notice most of that narrative has now gone, and this article is in the process of being redone. Merbabu 13:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Mount Merapi[edit]
Mount Merapia section directly contradicts the article to which it links. rhaas 16:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is a disgrace! Should either be re-written or it deserves AFd - for no refs, no sources, very poor writing,and other crimes not worth drawing attention to. SatuSuro 13:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- YEs - completely agree. This article is rubbish but the topic is very important. I made a start, but when i get the time i will work on it much more - anyone else of course feel free in the meantime. I think i will start by ripping out most of what is here, merge this page with the page for the Category:Volcanoes_of_Java and provide GENERAL info on the significance of volcanoes to Java (ecologically, culturally, historically, etc) rather than reams of info on specific mountains which would belong on individual mountain pages. I have some reasonably academic sources at home on this - but time is the issue. Merbabu 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your response and agreement.. Time is always the issue :) I am about to uncover materials in the near future. SatuSuro 09:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure if this article is necessary, as each volcanoe has its own article page. It would be better to put this article as category page as Merbabu suggested. I am going to help, but in the specific each volcanoe section. I voted for AFD. — Indon 07:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- It was important for an overview (sigh) with a list and links, but now its gone for afd (sigh) - the context of the original message above was - either re-written.. or afd for the very specific reason as an overview article, it can place linking information that would otherwise be repeated in all the separate volcano articles. The problem with putting up for afd is that editors with no knowledge of java (is it coffee? or the programming language) or volcanoes tend to join in (sigh). Merbabu had agreed but the topic is very important which I agree having lived in the shadow of an active javan volcano (sigh) Here we go again! SatuSuro 08:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Afd?[edit]
Its not on the log - it would be better to have a discussion here first. It should be retained as an overview article:
- List of Volcanoes in Java - active and extinct
- Map of Volcanoes
- General geological reasons (java trench, subduction zone)
- General bibliography
It should not be deleted for those reasons :) SatuSuro 08:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- What about shifing that sort of info to the category Volcanoes of Java - and then linking this page to the category? Is there anything stopping us making an article out of the category page? That way we have this general info and can "automatically" update the list - AND it is all in one spot. One problem with wikipedia is you often get this kind of repetition. But, once again, it is the time to do it. Merbabu 12:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article as a "mother" article can link to the others - IMHO you cannot simply put the info into the the catgory page, but maybe you can. SatuSuro 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the idea of using the category page only occured to me the other day - seems to make better sense than two similar pages (ie, this one and the category). Who says we can't? ;-). Anyway, i started the process the other day. Just to be clear, i would not suggest moving much of the info that is in this article - quality is an issue. Rather, start again with the type of info that you and i (and hopefully some of the others soon) have suggested here. Merbabu 14:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article as a "mother" article can link to the others - IMHO you cannot simply put the info into the the catgory page, but maybe you can. SatuSuro 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Combining Category and Article[edit]
Could we talk about the way to go with this? SatuSuro 12:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- he he - have you checked the article recently? Volcanoes of Java Look - this is just the start. I've combined the two pages the way i suggested - but of course, the info is still the same old s#@$. Yes, now we could work on getting that info in. ie, the suggestions both of us have made. I don't know about you, but my style is to "have a bash" and get something just 1/2 decent, or even less, and then throw it on the table for all to work on. Merbabu 12:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- hmm - i think my idea was not to write a list but rely on linking this category to individual volcano articles. Ie, an auto list. But yes, the catch with that is, it of course relies on each mountain having an article. But that is not impossible - the important mountains already do, and stubs need only be 2 sentences. Merbabu 12:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- PS, i really want to get rid of all that other text. I am reluctant to delete it, in case we can get something out of it, but that is too much effort. lol. THe alternative is to dump it into the individual articles, but that just moves the problem. hmm - i will think about it. Merbabu 12:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- PPS: OK - i can see you edits. hmm - i see. yes, that can work. Good info. we can run with that. i will work on the intro Merbabu 12:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- hmm - i think my idea was not to write a list but rely on linking this category to individual volcano articles. Ie, an auto list. But yes, the catch with that is, it of course relies on each mountain having an article. But that is not impossible - the important mountains already do, and stubs need only be 2 sentences. Merbabu 12:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't put too many volcanoes in that list!!! I'd like to create article for each one. lol Merbabu 12:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- It seems a bit counter productive with edit conflicts - I would have liked to have finished cleaning up:) SatuSuro 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- lol - i know. but it was kinda funny so i kept going. i think we seem to be on a parellel path anyway. close enough. Merbabu 12:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- It dosnt look that forboding now - surely? SatuSuro 12:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- It seems a bit counter productive with edit conflicts - I would have liked to have finished cleaning up:) SatuSuro 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Positive? I think you have to balance that with the negative. NPOV would compare the negative and positive benefits on sitting on top of the Java Trench subduction zone- or sitting plonk in the middle of the Sunda arc :) SatuSuro 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Geeze ya gotta be careful - som dimwit has put Sunda Plate when it should be arc :( SatuSuro 13:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody explain any logic of moving article to category page? Categories are for combining articles together and that's it, articles are to write about things itself. If these would have wanted to join in Wikipedia this would have done long time ago. Now is the result big mess. when wanna read article I end up to read category listing, when want to see category have to dig through load of text which I'm not looking for --TarmoK 13:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- lol. What's the logic of having them seperately? My initial thinking was not to have a list on this page AND a category. Rather the list would be the category. Also, maybe you are confusing logic and convention. Furthermore, I am not sure that it is a mess - maybe it is just different. And given that every volcano and more that is in the category is now in a list that will be superior to the category list i don't see the problem. Why would you want a category when many significant mountains aren't there - it depends on each one having an article? It's a shame you didn't comment last week when it was muted. But, i figure it won't last - people want conformity.Merbabu 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- First you didn't comment last week I don't know about you, but at least I (and I guess majority of the users) don't "live" here and don't follow changes of every article
- logic is this that category page is listing pages what wikipedia has. Articles of listing type are giving listing of all "objects" which can be grouped under certain type. In many cases all the "objects" will have article about it at some point of time, but many cases not. Additionally listing article can list extra information, notes etc about the "objects" in listing to clarify things.
- then comes convention, yes it is also convention that category is only listing of existing articles, it helps to understand material/information more easily and not pushing reader to think how s/he suppose to read/understand this = forcing reader to do/spend time of activity what s/he wanted to do in first place. Same way we do not start article with External links for example.
- That some things seem similar is not reason enough to put them together and as SatuSuro says below, there is bigger picture than just this article, aside of the category structures there is also wikipedias in other languages which are linking have linking between articles. I really hope you are aware of these when "prefering" current status quo and as you seem to be interested to make this and related articles work best way, then reverting this article category joining before somebody will make it without discussion --TarmoK 07:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I gave this some more thought - i accept that it is against the convetions and both ways have value. I'd prefer the way is now (ie, why have a good list in the article, but most pages linking back to a poor category page list - which will onyl be complete unless EVERY volcano has its own article?). Basically i am saying i prefer the new status quo, but can be reasonable in discussion. Actually, is there anyway to get the category list to appear above the written article on this page? Would that work better? Merbabu 02:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- It may seem logical for you to have put an article in a category, but you'll never get a GA for it, as some smart cookie will take it down for that reason :) SatuSuro 08:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Better to look at Volcanoes in Indonesia - the big mother of all this - and see how that has been formulated, thats what an outsider to all this will look at to see if there is consistency between the two systems. Ideally, if you are going against policy/rules for the small part, better to lookat what the bigger picture has got :) SatuSuro 08:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sandboxes[edit]
Maybe you need educating? :) SatuSuro 13:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- It may be encyclopedic editing but I am in the mood to do it on he wild side tonight - someone said something about being bold. Merbabu 13:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- every time, as they used to say ;SatuSuro 13:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Deletions[edit]
I've deleted whole sections - some of them were shockers. What do people think of that final tangkuban prahu section? Anything worth salvaging there? My philosophy has been that this was such a bad article, on such an important topic that we shoudl just start again. Merbabu 13:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I dunno if anyone else is watching yet, I say we be bold and pull the crap! SatuSuro 15:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a good start[edit]
Writing articles from scratch is a lot harder than editing other people's work. There is lot more to write, but i think a good effort has been made. Suggested new topics (not necessarily section headings):
- Geological History
- Ecological Benefit (rainfull, fertility)
- Disasters
- Cultural context, symbolism, etc
- List of Volcanoes in Java - active and extinct
- Map of Volcanoes
- General geological reasons (java trench, subduction zone)
- General bibliography
- tourism
Merbabu 13:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Previous discussion on Volcanoes of Java were the basic items are needed -
- Geological History - why repeat java trench and other arts? better small intro with many links and try to give the geols their bit of glory :)
- Ecological Benefit (rainfull, fertility) - you got the refs? go for it
- Disasters - beyond the overdone ones (krakatoa etc) - kelut, and more obscure ones are needed
- Cultural context, symbolism, etc - it works across the island - have fun finding the full range of stuff on that one :)
- List of Volcanoes in Java - active and extinct - we already have the list - just needs more annotation
- Map of Volcanoes - needs to be clear - most website maps are so cluttered and noisy as to be practically useless :)
- General geological reasons (java trench, subduction zone) (same as geol history)
- General bibliography - not available - try webites first (mostly usa) - more talk later on this one :)
- tourism - better, local traditions of visiting - in cultural context, and separately -
- climbing volcanoes - - whatevber. (ayers rock comes to mind - locals vs outsiders and diff ways of viewing the places)
SatuSuro 13:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- My list above was just a cut and paste from the list we each made on the old page. So some reptition. As with everything, the idea is not to repeat everything that is elsewhere, but to link it althogether in the Java context - but you know that. As for tourism and who actually climbs, i think i have only climbed volcanoes with Indonesians (and i don't mean porters or guides). lol Merbabu 13:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Reinventing the Wheel[edit]
Here is the list of Javanese volcanoes in alphabetical order from List of volcanoes it may inspire some, or enthrall others :) It provides very useful information for further info :) SatuSuro 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Java[edit]
Disambig links needed[edit]
- Muria SatuSuro 15:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
NB Muria currently directs to 2 Indian subjects not split, it needs a dab page. SatuSuro 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)