Jump to content

Talk:Jakarta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2024

[edit]

Numerous anonymous accounts frequently update irrelevant images in infoboxes, failing to accurately represent the city. It is imperative to have protection on this page to deter ongoing vandalism. Newpicarchive (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous anonymous accounts frequently update irrelevant images in infoboxes, failing to accurately represent the city. It is imperative to have protection on this page to deter ongoing vandalism. Newpicarchive (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

answered=yes ShakiraFandom (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous anonymous accounts frequently update irrelevant images in infoboxes, failing to accurately represent the city. It is imperative to have protection on this page to deter ongoing vandalism. Newpicarchive (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. IMHO, there doesn't seem to be enough vandalism to warrant protection, mostly just content disputes, in which case normal dispute resolution procedures should be attempted first. Liu1126 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.britannica.com/place/Jakarta. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 04:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too many images in the article

[edit]

I believe this article has a "too many images" issue. For example, the Colonial era section has three images, with two on the left and one on the right. We should adhere to the guidelines in MOS:IMAGES and start correcting this.

According to MOS:IMAGESYNTAX, Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement, so at the very least, all images should be moved to the right. Additionally, placing images on the left can create text sandwiching issues, which are generally discouraged by MOS:SANDWICH. MOS:IMAGESYNTAX also states that An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section. When there are too many images, they can end up far below the intended section, leading to confusion for readers. So, I may start trimming the images in the article based on the guidelines. Ckfasdf (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it from the MOS:IMAGES rule, but for the here part, it seems like it shouldn't be deleted because many of the world's metropolitan cities also use similar images. Such as Sao Paulo, Manila, and Moscow. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what image sandwiching is? It's when two images are parallel left and right, and this article doesn't have any. Images can be staggered left and right it's no problem, and no article has all left or right positions for the pics. Where do you get this 'rule' from?? It is normal for a city as big as Jakarta to have many pics! I suggest you reread the guideline rule. Compare this to Jakarta's sister city Los Angeles: it has more pictures than Jakarta and no one is having a problem with it, so why are you so pressed with Jakarta? Put up that too many images sign on LA article. I suggest you to discuss before making any big changes to any article. Rantemario (talk)
MOS:SANDWICH states, Avoid sandwiching text between two images horizontally opposite each other; or between an image and an infobox, navigation template, or similar. This guideline applies not only when two images are directly parallel on the left and right, but also whenever there are images on both sides with text in between, which creates a sandwiching effect. There are several examples of this issue in the Jakarta article, such as in the Colonial Era section.
Additionally, I don’t think the Los Angeles article is the best example of how a city article should look; in my opinion, the New York City article serves as a better model. The New York City article also has plenty of images, but none of them create a sandwiching effect, and all are placed appropriately next to their corresponding sections. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
So, is it still too many images or not? Can we take down the notice now? Rantemario (talk)
Yes, it is somewhat better now. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to delete all the images or something? It's like you h8 Jakarta; Regarding this edit [1] what resolution do you have? 1024x768? Because in my 1920x1080 it looks perfectly fine! Rantemario (talk)
Per MOS:RESOL, Wikipedia articles should be accessible to readers using devices with small screens such as mobile devices, or to readers using monitors with a low resolution. So, lower resolution should take priority. Btw, IMO that image would be better suited if it were included in Indonesian slang, instead of Jakarta. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baqotun's images

[edit]

User:Baqotun0023, no offense, but why did you restore all your images? Can you explain why your images are better than others? Because I see them as: 1. Repeated on Istiqlal Mosque article 2. Grand Indonesia is not that important, if you are really are Jakartan, because Grand Indonesia is just a mall nothing else, and Bundaran HI is not the centre of Jakarta (it's Monas). 3. Mall Taman Anggrek is notable because it is the biggest mall in Jakarta if not Southeast Asia, also has the only ice skating rink in the city (cmiiw). Please do explain, thanks! Rantemario (talk) Rantemario (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the previous picture of the Istiqlal Mosque was better than mine, but because there is a Copyright Law, which means that all forms of copyrighted work (including buildings) cannot be displayed on wikicommons (unless you only photograph part of the image or there are objects around it). Secondly, GI Mall is just same mall, but its location is more strategic than Taman Anggrek Mall (I don't care how big the mall is in Jakarta or whether there are unique things in it). If I'm greedy in posting my picture, frankly it's you who are greedy (you don't realize that the photo this, this, this, this, and this is your photos which is displayed in this article) Baqotun0023 (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you don't care? This is Wikipedia, we should have consensus on how an article should look, not on how you would like an article to look. Yeah, so? Maybe I'm the only one who have the photos of them? Why are you being defensive. Anyways, any section should show what makes the should be the main pic. Any files uploaded should have passed the copyright laws, so don't make things up. "I don't care" is not a good reason that your photo is better than everyone else's. No one cares about location Mall Taman Anggrek is full everyday and it has Ikea. Do you even live in Jakarta? Oh yeah by the way, if I'm noticing a WP:Sockpuppet, I will report it too. Please do write your defense. Thanks! Rantemario (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Baqotun0023 any answer?? Rantemario (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer does not strengthen the argument. Ok, maybe you don't like me (personally) and want to delete it okay. But with the condition that your picture (that I mentioned) will also be deleted with the consensus, how about that? Baqotun0023 (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hating anyone. But I want the best version of Jakarta article because this is my beloved hometown. Rantemario (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm what, half of the pictures would be gone then lol. Rantemario (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification use British English

[edit]

Article Jakarta uses British English, but why is there no notification that this article uses British English (such as the article Kuala Lumpur, London, and Paris) which is where there is a notification?

Meanwhile in Jakarta, until now there is no notification like that, so the editor is also a little confused that the language used in this article is British, not American (for example in this edit). Baqotun0023 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, and London all have the {{Use British English}} template at the top. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we need to place it? Baqotun0023 (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Use British English}} template was already there before my edit, at least since July 2020. Please also refer to MOS:RETAIN. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that means this case is clear. Thanks. Baqotun0023 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jakarta&oldid=1244499870"