Talk:Ruhana Kuddus

Requested move 4 May 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. KSF T C 19:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Rohana Kudus → Roehana Koeddoes – request to move this article to correct the proper spelling of the name of this person, from the commonly misspelled name 'Rohana Kudus' to the correct one 'Roehana Koeddoes' Newcron (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:UCN. "Rohana Kudus" gets 866 Google Books results vs. 45 hits for "Roehana Koeddoes".  —  AjaxSmack   23:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - For most of her life, she would have used the Van Ophuijsen Spelling System, and thus the "oe" spelling would be most accurate. Curious as to where the double "d" comes from, though. There aren't many Indonesians who use it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "For most of her life, she would have used the Van Ophuijsen Spelling System..." So did Soekarno but that article uses Sukarno because it is what reliable English sources use (even though the Indonesian article is at Soekarno). —  AjaxSmack   03:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Google search results are such because the misspelling has been for decades, and is part of why her family/descendants have recently been pushing hard to correct it whenever/wherever they can, on the web and in any newly published articles if the family is involved/interviewed, thus this request. The double "d" isn't such a big deal, as the pronunciation of the last name will be identical with or without, but the missing "e" in the first name is a huge deal as it made the pronunciation completely different in Indonesian language ("o" is pronounced "o", but "oe" is pronounced "u"). — Newcron (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not Wikipedia's job to correct historical wrongs. Reliable sources need to do that first. —  AjaxSmack   03:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I concede the point of Wikipedia correcting historical wrongs. The only other thing I have is that the effort to correct the spelling is observable, at least from my point of view. The wrong (current) spelling is used on many of the older publications (say, from middle towards late 20th century), while more recent publications from the late 1990s until now are mostly corrected with the proper spelling (an easy example is the Google Books search results that you posted above). Hopefully in time the correct spelling will catch up. Thank you for the discussion. — Newcron (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. English reliable sources appear to use the current spelling predominantly. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.