Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia/Archive 6

Indon up for deletion...
Hi all. The article Indon is up for deletion. Please comment on the link afd page. Discussion is here. --Merbabu (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jakarta bus-stops
It is with some concern that I note a template and series of articles have been created for Jakarta bus-stops. I know of no reason in either WP:NOT or WP:ABOUT as to why any single bus-stop in Jakarta is a notable entity for articles.

see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_19 SatuSuro 08:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Should be in the map of Jakarta Mass Rapid Transit. I don't even like these templates: S Jakarta, N Jakarta, etc., and the "Indonesianmusic" template seen in for example Gamelan. I say delete! --Rochelimit (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Maluku" or "Maluku Islands"
I've opened discussion about how to refer to the region.Here. Please provide your thoughts there. --Merbabu (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Cut Memey
Hi! I created an article on Cut Memey, who is a big celebrity - But I don't know Indonesian. Would anyone mind help adding to the article? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue
It is now time that with the almost incessant addition of one liner stubs about either soccer players or teams - that a well seasoned soccer editor from the football project needs to review the steady stream. As the editors appear to have limited if little english capacity (the creeping in of indonesian words or usage, or the minimum text one liner stubs with WP:ONESOURCE notably the liga indonesia website - and no corroborating WP:RS) - the Indonesian project is faced with something the average editor has neither the time or interest to glean the rubbish from the appropriate.

As the editors (who already have been identified above) never respond to the queries at their talk pages - and they simply keep adding their unsourced material - it really shows the lack of a reasonable policy or approach to be able to sort things out. I suggest that responses from others would be worth putting here - as I have more or less quit trying to cope with the issue.

So here it is - the project has been flooded with more or less pointless soccer info - most of it falling into WP:NOT territory - and the editors remain unchecked. Something has to be done SatuSuro 12:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * try an/i Sumbuddi (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What it happening is that industrious IP numbers slave away at copying word for word from the Indonesian wikipedia articles -

for instance: -
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persija_Jakarta
 * http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persija_jakarta

what a complete waste of time and energy - on WP id - there is no policing or reversion of material on the grounds of lack of WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS - there is the replication the total article here in WP en - surely most of the articles in this project should be reduced in size and context to the actual verifiable material (which is very little) SatuSuro 13:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't get too exxcited about it, but maybe try removing all unsourced content, then perhaps they can learn to provide sourcing etc. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah I have no excitement whatsoever in any way - it is just going to pollute the project by the constant atrittion which they are applying - when you see the red link names in the articles - they might want to do more one liner unreffed BLPS for all of those as well! - anyways I have mentioned it - I have off wiki things to attend to SatuSuro 14:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideally - some editors prepared to work via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Task_forces_and_sub-projects and have some effort at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability and a few others SatuSuro 16:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

indonesian-language editor(s)
See Sumbuddi (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the new permanent address for that report is at this archive page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Portal maintenance
Just wanted to drop a short note that I no longer will be able to regularly contribute to the maintenance of Portal:Indonesia in 2011, so if anybody is interested to keep it alive is welcome to contribute. Current maintenance tasks entail keeping the News section up to date, Picture of the week nominations, and Selected Article and DYK sections. The Selected biography section has been set up in the course of this year to random display one of a number of selections (see previous discussion above), so it does not need any maintenance, however the pool of articles could be expanded. An option would be to change the other sections to a similar system (now used by many portals) which would greatly reduce maintenance requirement.

As a background info for those not yet involved: Portal Indonesia has been set up in August 2006 and immediately promoted to Featured status. However, starting 2008 and throughout 2009 it hasn't been maintained and became increasingly outdated, and consequently lost its featured status. In 2010 some effort has been done to revive it, and at least eliminate the redlinks and outdated info. As a result the number of views started to increase again surpassing 3,000 per month and the page ranked top 500 of over 6,000 pages within the scope of the wikiproject. Its future is in your hands. --Elekhh (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Galungun festival in Bali
According to what several Balinese people told me, Galungan is not a holiday to celebrate the coming (and going) of Balinese gods to earth, but rather a visit by ancestors of the Balinese. Does anybody have a reference on this?Robert van der Hoff (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article as it is written http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galungan - because the day falls on a day in the balinese calendar - it is focused on the calendrical sequence rather than any other aspects - it (the article) is also very close to being either WP:COPYVIO or WP:OR as it stands SatuSuro 03:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is this project going?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indonesia_Super_League&action=historysubmit&diff=402153360&oldid=402072578

It seems fast towards one vast soccer table - where text and explanation go and are replaced by lists and tables. SatuSuro 23:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Another small issue
Indonesian villages Are not by any means notable simply because they exist (inherent notability (( ie if a village exists it deserves a stub?)) would see literally tens of thousands of pointless stubs) - two examples: -
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koor,_Indonesia
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batuan,_Bali

neither article actually has any inherent notability - as there is neither WP:RS or sufficient WP:V to verify anything that makes these localities any different from the tens of thousand other villages of Indonesia - some editors have been creating stubs for localities that seem to have no clear notability - any comment on this matter would be appreciated - SatuSuro 04:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tagged them for notability. If nothing is done soon, I suggest we AfD them. Davidelit (Talk) 04:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't participate in either of the two examples above, but Batuan, Bali would seem to be notable if in fact it is the source of the adjective "batik". Gold mining at or near Koor could reasonably justify the article. Generally speaking, I expect to find a listing for any place, however so humble. The ten-thousand mentioned above reminds me of the slogan let a thousand flowers bloom. --Bejnar (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the case of the specific articles:

please - if you know of context that can justify the stubs - please add material (ie WP:RS for WP:V to save the stubs - it is simply beyond any one editor in this project to actually expand the untended articles beyond their impoverished state - as for the thousands of flowers - that association was not inferred or intended in any way - thats your memory or association! - for this project to assume:- Generally speaking, I expect to find a listing for any place, however so humble - in all WP: AGF and WP:CIVILITY - you really have to be kidding (maybe you dont understand WP:ABOUT or WP:NOT )- there is no practical functional reason why the Indonesian project should have the name of every village in the country on wikipedia, a clear misreading and understanding of what this project (Indonesia project or Wikipedia in general) is about - it is not a gazzetteer SatuSuro 04:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any great claim to notability. But I don't see any harm either. I think it would be a waste of time to afd them. --Merbabu (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Look wider. For example, Wikipedia has 52328 pages under Category:Villages in Poland. It even has 14823 pages under Category:Geography of Antarctica. I think other parts of the editorial community are using different criteria from the ones you propose to apply to Indonesian Villages. Sincerely, Oguk (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is partly why I am a bit ambivalent to the question. I know Australia also has articles on even the smallest localities (as does Poland as you point out). But on the other hand, Indonesia is a much bigger country than most with a massive number of villages and I share SatuSuro's and Davidelit's concern about never finding reliable sources to say anything more than it's name and location. I think there's more work and angst in deleting, and they will keep coming back. I would never create these stubs, but on the other hand, do they do harm? --Merbabu (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places which contains the observation: "Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source". Reliable sources would, I presume, include http://www.geonames.org/ Regards, Oguk (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Geonames is not a reliable secondary source in the sense of WP:RS - it does not indicate where or on what basis it compiles its data, and it's not even difficult to find non-existent places, places which do exist but not in its database, and straight out errors. Orderinchaos 02:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As confirmation that Geonames is not a WP:RS, it evidently picks up information from Wikipedia, including false information. Over two years ago, a hoax article about a non-existent Shropshire village called "Monvilla" was deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Monvilla, but it is still there in Geonames, complete with the words of the hoax article. Geonames has got Bunaka too, an Indonesian hoax we have just deleted. To be fair, both those say in small print: "no records found in geonames database, showing wikipedia results", but someone using Geonames as a source, particularly in automatic or semi-automatic mode, might miss that; and the Wikipedia data for Monvilla is still there two years after we deleted it, and if we trusted Geonames could well be used as a source to reintroduce it. JohnCD (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The geonames database is a reliable source, so far as I can tell it is a dump from the nga gnis database. What you are talking about is the site, which can and does report other things, for which the source, that they provide, must be checked. --Bejnar (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good luck in trying to delete these articles. I only started the major villages in Papua and Maluku. In fact I added more text to a few of them and sources like Galela and Tobelo. You gonna try delete does too?. They don't stand a chance of being deleted if they are verifiable settlements. Sorry. Satusaro if the regencies are a serious problem I suggest you highlight to me what exactly needs doing and for what provinces the sub stubs lie in. We both know that regencies should have decent articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Koor, Indonesia is perfectly acceptable and by labelling my valid stubs as "pointless sub stubs" you really ought to read what wiki means. I adde dmore content and sources in five minutes flat.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Point taken - a stub is started and nothing is really added to verify that - I did not start this discussion in relation to deleting anything - what I object to is finding stubs that have no inherent clues as to why they are started - as you have shown - they can be added to - there is never followup on this project unless something like this happens - (too few editors and very very little followup on the more outrageous errors) - so thank you for showing what you have started actually has menaing beyond what the original state of the stub reflected - I do think it is on the onus of the original editor to put even a single wp;rs or something to offer a potential to review the status of a stub - rather than have project members or others wondering why a particular one lined stub might exist SatuSuro 12:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the current status of Koor, Indonesia and a new article of mine on a Kecamatan, yes SatuSuro a Kecamatan!!! Sausapor are evidence that maybe more localised places in Indonesia are more notable than you might think. If we had an article on every Kecamatan on english wikipedia like Sausapor I doubt you'd be complaining. What we don't want is this. Indonesian, Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia and Laos are my area of focus anyway so I'll try to make my work on Indonesia ongoing and improve quality. But the biggest obstacle is time. I work on African topics, Latin American topics even expanding US/UK village and European architecture so there is only so much time I have to contribute to Indonesian articles. I really wish you would all follow my example and get writing instead of moaning... If we want quality then deleting every short/undeveloped article in sight is unlikely going to work as they are likely to be recreated equally as badly at some point. If we want quality we have to be prepared to research articles and spend the time writing. Otherwise don't complain about the lacking additions of others.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason why eventually we couldn't have a half decent article on every kelurahan of Indonesia if sources are apparent. Of course sourcing is the main obstacle but from what I've seen so far information can be gathered to start at least some of the sub districts as I've demonstrated with Sausapor, Bontobahari, Pitumpanua‎, Masamba and Larompong. Priority though is the regencies of Indonesia. There's no excuse for not having articles on them initially, they should be expanded/started asap. Thanks you've inspired me to generate tons of articles on Indonesian places...♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. (but would you mind not inserting little flags in the infoboxes per WP:MOSFLAG). cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PS – and of course, they should be inarguably verified by reliable sources *upon creation* even if they are only 1 sentence stubs. Otherwise, it just wastes everyone’s time and only supports case for afd. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For anyone interested - the items at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG#Notability of Indonesian geography follow on from this thread SatuSuro 07:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts re-jigged
Has found this intriguing issue - I have never seen Times atlas used as a reason to delete an article that has existed for 3 years - please add your comments - those who have this on your watch: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunaka cheers SatuSuro 00:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An (uncited) "winter" water temp of 15 degrees celsius and "summer" temp of 35 degrees sounds dubious to put it mildly. These are equatorial seas. The article's essentially an orphan with no references. The author is still active. What do they have to say? --Merbabu (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt the water reaches either extreme. Even Perth's water rarely gets below 16°C, and we're temperate. On the other hand water warmer than 32, even in Indonesia, would be highly unexpected. Anything above 26 in open ocean tends to produce cyclones/hurricanes, and various references suggest that 32 is an upper limit in Indonesia. Orderinchaos 03:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost removed everything but the first sentence from that article as "uncited bollocks", but then realised that showing said uncited bollocks helps the case for deletion. Settled by the Balinese who remain the dominant population – yeah, right. Google shows nothing. That editor needs a serious talking to (indef block if it was up to me). --Merbabu (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL @ "uncited bollocks". Yeah its a hoax, I've speedied it but no admin has deleted yet.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just deleted it Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Kecamatan
I notice red link lists of kecamatan are appearing in regency (and other?) articles. Looks good. Could we get the sources cited? It is presumably coming from somewhere and not the editor's head. many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Western New Guinea
Western New Guinea redirects to West Papua (region), but we have Category:Western New Guinea and several similarly named subcategories. We should either rename the article to Western New Guinea, or move the categories to Category:West Papua (region). I think the article move would be better. –Moondyne 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Referring to the geographic region of the western half of New Guinea island, I think Western New Guinea is better. I don't understand why Merbabu capitulated to the recent article move push, when arguments seems to me where on his side. I would support moving it back. To summarize the arguments: (1) Western New Guinea (or West New Guinea) are far more often used than West Papua to refer to the geographic region, (2) West Papua is very ambiguous as its most common use is for the province of West Papua (which is only a part of West Papua region), and is not to be confused with the West of Papua Region in Papua New Guinea, (3) Western New Guinea is not politically loaded whereas West Papua is. --Elekhh (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My arguments exactly - and they are better arguments (of course). However, at the time I seemed to be almost (completely?) alone in making them. The argument for the move was (1) that's what independence supporters want (and they're poltically correct, and not to mention morally and fashionbly correct too, right?) and (2) as people with little experience of the issue found through google it's what the BBC and ABC use and (3) broad historical and academic use of West/ern New Guinea was completely irrelevant. go figure. So, rather than fighting fruitlessly against the trendy and morally correct mob I just capitulated on the title and then got on with improving the article, for which no one else seemed interested. --Merbabu (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutrality should take priority to "political correctness" of the day, and from encyclopedic perspective IMO "ecosystemic correctness" too. I know sometimes a week can seem an eternity, but I am afraid you closed that move discussion too early. However maybe is better to have a fresh start. --Elekhh (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A very close read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Papua_(region) might be of some assistance in this ongoing issue - and the players involved SatuSuro 05:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As far I am concerned we should follow WP:NPOV which is -remember- one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and which renders any "player"'s personal POV irrelevant. I see West New Guinea has 7,000,000 hits on google whereas West Papua has 629,000 (some of which refer to the newly established province). That places anecdotal links to ABC/BBC's "West Papua" into perspective. Most importantly we talk about a region that is a geographically clearly defined area, whereas politically its labels have been in constant change. We face now the issue that among categories there is a mix of the two terms which can really confuse readers. --Elekhh (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * well stated - on that basis it should be moved SatuSuro 07:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So what to do? --Merbabu (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I missed finding the earlier discussion, if I had I probably wouldn't have raised the issue again so soon. My concern was more about making the article and the categories consistent with each other.  I agree "West Papua (region)" is a slightly ambiguous term and hence favour "Western New Guinea" which clearly tells the reader this is a non-political/geographical descriptor.  I have no depth of knowledge in this area but reading the comments here and at the discussion I think the consensus is saying WNG.  –Moondyne 08:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moondyne, sorry to have not addressed your initial question on the categories. We should get resolution on the name first. Ideally, if we change back to WNG, then we will have the following pages and related categories along the lines of:
 * Western New Guinea – the geographic region. The western Indonesian ½ of the island of New Guinea
 * West Papua (Indonesian province)
 * Papua (Indonesian province).
 * cheers --Merbabu (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Either reopen the old move request or start a new one. This time it will have to be closed by an admin, since the move will require deletion of the old page.--Elekhh (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you or Moondyne be kind enough to start that process? I agree with what both of you are saying. Might look better than me re-opening it!. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to take a Wikibreak shortly, therefore I would prefer doing it in January. --Elekhh (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry this took so long, I posted the request for move here. --Elekhh (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Indon up for deletion...
Hi all. The article Indon is up for deletion. Please comment on the link afd page. Discussion is here. --Merbabu (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)