Talk:Jakarta/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Two comments

I don't think article is anywhere near bad enough to need the cleanup tag! I'm not a regular editor of this article, so I'll leave it for someone else to remove it or not.. -- Chuq 02:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this picture should be merged into the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jakarta_slumlife65.JPG

Skyline

This article could use a good daytime picture of the Jakarta skyline. TheCoffee 13:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Orang Betawi

Minor edit on Orang Betawi, the ethnic group which has inhabited what is now Jakarta since the 17th Century. Were referred to as "Betawinese" and incorrectly described as anyone born in Jakarta. Google records less than 60 hits for "Betawinese", and it is not a term I had seen used elsewhere. I have therefore used the Indonesian term for the group. --Kutu 05:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why introduce an indonesian word? It has no meaning in english. The translaton would be "Betawi people" or Betawinese, like it was. I vote for "Betawi people" if the "-nese" looks too pretentious. --216.116.87.110 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The word Betawi are from batavia. That means they are people living (they decendent) in there since batavia era. Daimond 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary, for example

the 'peranakan' (Tionghoa, Arab, India) in beginning of 20th Century didn't call themselves as Betawi.

The term also didn't applied to Minang and Ambonese of 20th Century who lived in Batavia.

In my opinion, Betawi is a tribe, result of asimilation many tribes in the past who lived in Jakarta, against the government-segregation-policy-based-on-tribe, using east-malay-dialect as the foundation of its language. And Betawi itself is the name of the tribe, there are no use of introduce "people" or "-nese" since it never refer to place. Kunderemp 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah that's right. I have Minang, Jawa and Bengkulu blood. My ancestors from Minang side have live in Jakarta from mid 20th Century(1973) but they don't call themself Betawi. They call themself Orang Minangkabau. And Betawi are tribe from 15th Century that come from assilimation of Melayu , Sunda, Jawa, and other tribe. And the Betawi are great at Silat!Fanatic terrorist ass 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tanjung Priok / Tandjung Priok

Hi @all, can anybody indonesian expert have a look after Tandjung Priok? I added a hint to the sailship fleet. And I am a littel bit unsure about the name´s spelling. Regards BerndB 17:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I've moved it to Tanjung Priok - "Tandjung Priok" is a valid, but outdated, spelling, just like "Djakarta" is an old spelling of "Jakarta". (See Indonesian_language#Writing_system). I've got some reasonable pictures of the pinisi sailing ships - I'll see about digging them up eventually. CDC (talk) 17:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stupid

I'm probably going to make myself look pretty stupid here, but I can't see Jakarta highlighted on the "Map of Indonesia showing Jakarta". It doesn't help that I don't know where Jakarta is in Indonesia, but it is not obvious to me. Am I missing something? Can somebody put me out of my misery, please? Cheers TigerShark 17:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jakarta is on the northwest coast of Java, which is the second large island in the southern chain of islands, counting from the left. If you look reeeealy closely, you can see maybe three bright green pixels highlighting Jakarta. Obviously, this needs to be fixed, but I don't have the tools right now. If someone wants to do it, you could look at the map for Yogyakarta for one possibility. Oh, and don't feel stupid - it's the map's fault. CDC (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You are right, there are exactly three pixels that are sufficiently highlighted. :/ Someone should fix that... Coffee 20:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed, because I see more than 3 pixels. But I still think we should create a better map. Any ideas on this? I'll have a go on it if we pick a way to draw it. I was thinking of a normal Indonesia map, then expand the west java region and highlight Jakarta there. --Steax 01:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current version is OK - i.e., it shows where Jakarta lies within Indonesia - many don't know that, and we should cater for that. But, if you can have a dual map as you seem to be suggesting that is OK. --Merbabu 01:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new map with the zoomed portion. I've still got the source, so we can tweak it to our needs. Here it is so far. --Steax 07:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one thing. I made the zoom from a retraced enlargement of the Java region, and therefore I had to take some liberties and possibly reduced the map's accuracy of shape. As you can see some areas are deformed and smoothened. If this is a major problem, provide me with a map with a better scale and I will fill in the Jakarta region and paste it there. --Steax 07:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Map

Looks like you're using an old map! Because nowdays, the Goverment of Indonesia have split some provice (like Riau now become Riau and Kepulauan Riau). Can you update the map???

Who's "you"? :-) Wikipedia depends on contributions from everybody. If you feel strongly about this, why don't you make an updated map and upload it? Please sign your comments by using four tildes '~'. Julius.kusuma 14:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the newer map, but I just want to suggest the maker of this article to search or make a newer one. Ali Wardhana 07:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 7:35 27 April 2006 (UTC) NB: Now I put my sign...right? :)

Lists

The education and shopping mall sections contain lists that are unwieldy and in my opinion are not very useful. If there are no objections I intend to edit the lists out and replace it with something more verbose, and hopefully more meaningful. Jakarta is a large city, and listing every university and "shopping mall" is just unnecessary. Thoughts? Julius.kusuma 20:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - most other articles about major cities and national capitals don't list every school and mall. Instead, text describing a few highlights of each is much more informative. So let's mention the U of Indonesia, Blok M, or whatever places are unusual or of national repute (I don't know what those would be; I hardly know Jakarta), but that's it. CDC (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of image?

User 24.199.83.253, why do you insist on removing the image Image:Jakarta slumlife71.JPG ? Julius.kusuma 04:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Reply =>I'm terribly Sorry for deleting the Pictures but I believe together we should promote Jakarta as a Beautiful city so please do not post pictures of Slumlife,Poverty,Economy Crisis and all that is bad in Jakarta.as those Pictures give bad Images/Bad Reputation of My City,Jakarta in The Worlds Eyes.And I reqest to remove the Problems Topic and the Econmoy Crisis 1998 Link as they give bad Reputation to Jakarta. Do Post Pictures of Beautiful Jakarta.Skyline,Entertainment,Culture,etc. Thanks and Enjoy Jakarta!

Fahrian, Please sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

I understand your sentiment, but it is misplaced here. There are millions of images of Jakarta that show its negative side. What are you going to do about those? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the objective here is to present . You may want to start by reading the welcome page and the following two pages: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and be bold in editing pages. Julius.kusuma 01:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it Bantargebang? If yes, actually Bantargebang is located in Bekasi not Jakarta.Aditthegrat 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh... I live here in Jakarta too, and I have to say that this city isn't really that beautiful... ^^;; But I love Jakarta, I really do, it's just that what Julius.Kusuma said is true: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we have to lay things how it is. Now, maybe it is a good idea to have people know the negative side of Jakarta (poverty, mountains of garbage and all) and the side which Jakarta-lover up there talked about. Anyway.... did I missed it or there's no section about the demographic and social life? I founD it interesting, just too bad I don't have enough facts, and I'm no expert. 202.73.122.227 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but I also find that it is unfair to portray Jakarta in such bad shape. For instance, cities with similar development level as Jakarta such as Bangkok and Manila are portrayed so beautifully in wikipedia articles, with the absence of images of slums, pollutions, etc - a feature that is certainly existing in those two cities. Why should Jakarta be the only one who has slum pictures? Jakarta is a beautiful, modern, and thriving city, and I think there should be more images that promote that aspect. EriqueG 23:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, here in Jakarta these problems are escalating and have come under debate and discussion of late (especially connecting with the floods and such). All cities have their dark sides, and I think we can be proud to just show our city boldly. There's nothing wrong with showing it, and it's telling the truth. In my opinion, lets just keep it. And don't forget about the positive side - it might also raise awareness and understanding of this problem. That's helpful for Jakarta citizens too, right? --Steax 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Twin Towns

New South Wales, Australia is not a city. Its a state. Avalon 13:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

.... and I don't know which city in NSW is the twin to Djakarta. Avalon 13:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The relationship is with the state New South Wales, not a specific city. Caniago 07:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

three in one rule

Is the three in one rule equivalent to HOV in the states? If so it might be better to say "requiring passengers" A google search didn't bring up any relevant information. Not An IP 17:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There three in one rule, but idon't know what HOV? certain main streets ( main street sudirman) are not allow private car/mobil pass the street if the private car have less than three person/passenger around time 7:00 until 10:00 in the morning and around time 16:00 to 19:00 too.Daimond 07:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Motorbike new rule

wow when i look in this suara pembaruan this day 29 november 2006, I look this new rule like a very stupid rule. When many country try save and conserve energy indonesia do oposite about that. and this do when our country have problem with electricity. i would like to see how this would burden more to pln when they recharge the accu.Daimond 12:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Object vital

okay we forgot about object vital in jakarta like istana negara dan gedung dpr mpr. the problem where are finds data about all jakarta object vital? anyone know? recently i know that my area become vital object from regular montly pay for security? the problem there people not belive that glodok area become object vital. so where we find all data about object vital in the jakarta? Daimond 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

File:IMAGE0001.JPG

More history

Has essentially nothing happened in Jakarta since the early 1600s? That's the impression this article gives. For starters, here's a Dutch article that fills in some of the gaps, if someone is able to translate it. Biruitorul 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

February 2007 floods in Jakarta

You need to to add in an artical about the recent floods in this city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.136.52.218 (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Something about the floods was added. However, the English is so garbled that the text is nearly incomprehensible. Somebody needs to work on it. I'd like to but due to the incomprehensibility of the text I don't think I can. --Maxl 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent incomprehensible and uncited changes. (Caniago 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

1996 flood data sorry this still in indonesia langguae, cause we still under suharto regim in that time. http://www.hamline.edu/apakabar/basisdata/1996/02/12/0029.html Daimond 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Population stats don't make sense

The population statistics in the first paragraph of this entry don't make sense. First it claims there are 8.7 million people in Jakarta as a whole, then it says there are 23 million people just in the metropolitan area. Either the stats are wrong, or its entirely unclear what each of them refer to. Bruce.Williams 01:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that stats if from reliable sources are not incorrect, rather ill-defined or just not clear. It is perfectly reasonable for a city to have a certain population within its administratively defined borders, but for the total developed urban area (ie, metro area) that might not be administratively defined as 'Jakarta' to extend a lot further. Sydney city for example has only a few 100,000 in the City of Sydney but the metro area (ie, Sydney) is 4million + which is thus the commonly quoted figure. Merbabu 01:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I live in Jakarta, and even I think the entry doesn't make sense. I do agree in some point that there are approx. 20 million people living in Jakarta as a whole, but not in the Metropolitan area. It is basically spread all around the province itself. The only common explanation is that the population in the metro area is 8-9 million, give or take. It is very hard to determine the exact stats because it is always changes rapidly (probably every week due to migration). Until we have a correct source, I suggest we put the one with the clear source.HoneyBee 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are problems with the population stats. The link at the bottom of the page doesn't lead to anywhere with stats. There is a lack of consistency on the page. According to official Indonesian statistics at http://www.kependudukancapil.go.id/ the population is lower than that given here, but List of cities by population gives yet another figure. Meanwhile, the urban figure in List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population is naturally higher. As well as inconsistency, there is therefore confusion about how to define population. Any thoughts about what to do? I'd go with the officials figures for the city and the Wikipedia metropolitan figure for the conurbation, but make the difference clear... Davidelit 06:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

so we have three number of population, 8.7 million (2005 from Jabodetabek article, don't know where it come from), 8.8 million(2004) and 7.5 million (2007 - from authorative site). I couldn't imagine a million people die only in 2 years no matter how worse the crime rates was or how large the number of immigration. I prefer the official number (eventhough they are not free from mistakes -- seen by the controversy of last Jakarta governor election last month).

I link Metropolitan area in the article in hope seemed-look-like-controversies will be clear. Indeed the number of population of metropolitan areas is naturally higher due to the definition itself.Kunderemp 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Here in Jakarta there are many Illegal people. Under the Pluit Tol example. And in Jalur (Tebet) . No wonder the Sensus has many mistakes Fanatic terrorist 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, friends :). Obviously, there are many unregistered residents in Jakarta, hence the resulting difficulty in reaching an accurate population figure. This is why I placed 'official' in front of 'population' in the first paragraph. Some estimates about the actual number of people in the city reach as high as 12 million. Maybe an additional few words regarding the confusion about this statistic would be appropriate. Wikimuppy 06:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC) -wikimuppy

Shanty towns

Are there any pictures available of the shanty towns? Mallerd 11:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See [1] for pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallerd (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue of a merging and how to incorporate information into main article

List of shopping malls in Jakarta needs a merge issue to be resolved and no doubt cleaned up - and from that - a section needs to be incorporated into the main article- any suggestions? Satu Suro 11:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, if there is list of statues in Jakarta, it will be more useful than list of shopping mall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunderemp (talk • contribs) 02:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Utility and the usage by Jakartans of shopping centres as poltical social and economic indicators of their community makes them notable - statues are usually reflections of political power and notions of history imposed. just my 25 rupes worth Satu Suro 03:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree if there are mentions of number of notable malls as indicator. However, seeing the list, I couldn't say agree. For example, Pondok Indah Mall and Pondok Indah Mall 2 was basically one entity under the same management. There are too many Carefour and who can guarantee it will stand for another 10 years? We have already seen the fate of Golden Truly as example how volatile such a list was.

Instead the list of Shopping Mall, I prefer the list contains shopping area and then, in each area, you can mention the shopping mall. For example, Senayan have "Plaza Semanggi", "Senayan City", "Plaza Senayan", "Senayan Trade Center", "Ratu Plaza", and of course "Carefour Ratu Plaza".

that was just my 200 rupiah coin Kunderemp 03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think the history section is too long?

I create a new article, History of Jakarta. Perhaps we can trim the section.Kunderemp 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the history section is excessively long. Perhaps the first half could be trimmed a little bit. THe big problem for the first half though is lack of references. There is no need to create a new article - unless you have a lot more information that is reliably sourced (Indonesian wikipedia is not a reliable source, by the way). Anything unsourced can be removed at anytime. cheers --Merbabu 05:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the part from 1596 to 1619 can be traced in Adolf Heuken's "Sumber-Sumber Asli Sejarah Jakarta Jilid II: Dokumen-dokumen Sejarah Jakarta dari kedatangan kapal pertama Belanda (1596) sampai dengan tahun 1619 (The authentic source of history of Jakarta part II: Documents of history of Jakarta from the first arrival of Dutch (1596) to year 1619) ".

I had the book in my desk and I've just read a third of it ( page 56 of 158 pages ). I'll try to match the article with the book (but I need a time due to my daily work).

The previous paragraphs (about the treaty between Kingdom of Sunda and Portuguese) seemed like MC Ricklef's version although I'm sure Heuken should be mentioned them (complete with the documents) somewhere in his books.

Is Adolf Heuken reliable enough? The book which I mentioned above seemed to be written directly in Indonesian and I am not sure whether it has counterparts in English although the same author wrote other books with the same topic in English.

Kunderemp 13:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Banten had close relationship with Dutch?

The relationships between both Prince Jayawikarta and the English with the Banten government then became worse and resulted in the Sultan of Banten's decision to capture Prince Jayawikarta and move him to Tanara, a small place in Banten, until his death[6]. This assisted the Dutch in their efforts to establish a closer relationship with Banten.

I found the last sentence of the above quotation is weird. I believe the poster try to paraphrase from BeritaJakarta.com article (quoted below)

The Dutch army was about to surrender to the British when in 1619, a sultan from Banten sent soldiers and summoned Prince Jayawikarta for establishing closed realtionship with the British without first asking an approval from Banten authorities. The conflict between Banten and Prince Jayawikarta as well as the tensed relationship between Banten and the British had weakened the Dutch enemy. Prince Jayawikarta was moved to Tanara and died in Banten.

The Dutch felt relieved and tried to establish a closer relationship with the Banten. The Dutch fortress garrison, along with hired soldiers from Japan, Germany, Scotia, Denmark, and Belgium held a party in commemoration of the change in situation. They name their fortress after Batavia to recollect the ethnic group Batavier, the Dutch ancestor. Since then Jayakarta was called Batavia for more than 300 years.

As far as I remember from all of what I had read and the article from beritajakarta.com, none of them said about the capture of Pangeran Jayawikarta help the Dutch establish a close relationship to Banten. Beritajakarta.com's article could probably means the banishment of Pangeran Jayawikarta motivated the Dutch to establish a closer relationship not the otherway around. It is not mutual. Kunderemp 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is BeritaJakarta.com reliable?

The site itself claimed as Media Online Pemprov Jakarta (Online Media of Jakarta Provincial Government). Some part of history (such as the involvement of Banten in the demise of Jayawikarta) was taken from the site [2] but ironically, by inappropriate sentence modification which also change the meaning of the some sentences and become a confusing paragraph. Kunderemp 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Need help, first English house in 1615

The article said:

Prince Jayawikarta apparently also had a connection with the English and allowed them to build houses directly across from the Dutch buildings in 1615.

In Adolf Heuken's book, in 1615, the English source state

Captain Saris took provisions as Jacatra would afford; 19-1-1613

To confer with the King of Jacatra about a place there for a factory and settled course of customs with liberty to build a strong house 'free from fire', to confer also with the Flemings to join with the English in leaving Bantam and removing wholly to Jacatra or elsewhere.

2-1-1615 Must not build any house in Jacatra for that he will not leave us to have two houses, whereupon we leave left to proceed any further until we find him in a better humor. The king of Jacatra has given them a piece of ground ... The Hollanders in matter of trade worse enemies to the English than the Portugals

(Sainsbury, W.N., 1870; vol. 2 no. 636, 739, 862)

I wonder what the quoted statement means. Did it mean, the English was allowed to build one and only one house in 1615?

In the book itself (p.48), Heuken stated (and included a map) the first English house (Rumah/gudang Inggris pertama) -- without mentioning the year it was built -- directly across House of Mauritius owned by Dutch. The English was in the west bank of Ciliwung River (pre-1632) while House of Mauritius was located in the east bank. The second English house was built post the demise of Pangeran Jayawikarta on the ruin of Pangeran Jayawikarta's house. Kunderemp 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the plural word (houses) into singular (a house). Kunderemp 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Issue higher up on talk list worthy of careful consideration - added to foot of page

Orang Betawi

Minor edit on Orang Betawi, the ethnic group which has inhabited what is now Jakarta since the 17th Century. Were referred to as "Betawinese" and incorrectly described as anyone born in Jakarta. Google records less than 60 hits for "Betawinese", and it is not a term I had seen used elsewhere. I have therefore used the Indonesian term for the group. --Kutu 05:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why introduce an indonesian word? It has no meaning in english. The translaton would be "Betawi people" or Betawinese, like it was. I vote for "Betawi people" if the "-nese" looks too pretentious. --216.116.87.110 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The word Betawi are from batavia. That means they are people living (they decendent) in there since batavia era. Daimond 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary, for example the 'peranakan' (Tionghoa, Arab, India) in beginning of 20th Century didn't call themselves as Betawi. The term also didn't applied to Minang and Ambonese of 20th Century who lived in Batavia.

In my opinion, Betawi is a tribe, result of asimilation many tribes in the past who lived in Jakarta, against the government-segregation-policy-based-on-tribe, using east-malay-dialect as the foundation of its language. And Betawi itself is the name of the tribe, there are no use of introduce "people" or "-nese" since it never refer to place. Kunderemp 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion,

the Betawi cannot be equaled with Javanese or Balinese where the latters needed to be add "-nese" since Java and Bali also the name of Island. The Betawi case is similar to Minang. If you read Minang article, they use the word "The Minang".

The origin of Betawi is debatable. Some (like Lance Castles) said they are descended from immigrant living in Batavia. Others (like Ridwan Saidi and Muhadjir) said, there had been Melayu-spoken people in Sunda Kalapa and the culture enriched by the immigrant. In either case, the Colonial government started to recognize The Betawi as one entity, one tribe around 18th-19th century (need more source citation). In 1923, Husni Thamrin founded Kaoem Betawi Kunderemp 03:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Structural adjustment in Indonesia

All sides use the phrase "structural adjustment"; not just its critics. E.g. the World Bank, here touting its imagined success in Indonesia: [3] Or here's an OECD version: [4] The IMF and WB are proud of structural adjustment programs; critics of development such as Arturo Escobar (anthropologist) feel that they are violence against the poor. But people on all sides use the phrase. Also, it captures not just one policy (dereg., for example), but a whole list of actions. --Smilo Don 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. The point of the revision is to show that not just 'financial dereg.' led to the real estate boom; specifically, it was a variety of factors; see my updates on Bang Ali for more on that. For better or for worse, Sadikin literally paved the way for some of the changes to come. --Smilo Don 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Structural adjustment" and its linking to a disputed and tenuously relevant article is inappropriate to this context and smacks of WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN:

It implies World Bank or IMF assistance in exchange for certain changes - where is the reference to IMF/World Bank conditional assistance?
It is much better to simply say what it was with a specific npov term - ie, "Structural adjustment" is clearly a loaded commentary term - Smilodan himself has used it over the last few weeks as a tool of derision for what he claims is gross POV. Ditto to words such as "oligarchy". Lots of commentary and value judgements, little on hard facts.
Linking it to the structural adjustment article shows no direct relevance or understanding of the late-1980's changes, nor do the links you've just provided above.
The links you provide in the article also do not show any direct relationship to the point - ie, discussion of an urban centre. This is not a political/economics article - given that the term is clearly debated, and this isn't even directly political/economic article - rather the mention of the reforms is merely trying to set up the real estate boom background, then i suggest further insistence on sloppy use of the term 'structural adjustment' is a distraction and time waster. Time which could maybe spent on resolving the Structural adjustment article itself.

See WP:SYN. Once again, wikipedia is not truth - it is verifiability. --Merbabu 02:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Easy now. Back up a step and holster that gun. The point, going back to the edit, was to try to point out the financial dereg. was not the sole factor in the real estate boom--that it emanated from a variety of sources. I put "structural adjustment" as an expedient way to depict a variety of neoliberal changes that were effected. Above, I offered links, not in support of the real estate issue, but to show that 'structural adjustment' is not a left wing slogan--it's a term exchanged by all parties. I think you misread my wholesome intent above as something rather deceitful. Now, let's all use some good faith here. Back to the original edit--the aim was to broaden the scope of events that led up the boom. I saw an oversimplification of events and tried to parsimoniously fill in the gaps. It's a shame that the WP entry to structural adjustment isn't better, but that doesn't change it's relevance to Jakarta. Cheers --Smilo Don 21:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On a related point, the description of "Land distribution" is problematic. It is indeed an important point but the supplied Sajor reference does not make this specific point. It needs further explanation that must be succinct, and while it can be paraphrased this must not be at the expense of accuracy. The Sajor reference has interesting points, but they are not accurately represented here. --Merbabu 06:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Modernist freeways? Fun with Harvey and Kusno

Hey folks. Quick note here about the word "modernist." I'd like to keep it. Why? It's very illuminating--in a single word. It speaks volumes about orientations, objects, and an era. Modernism is something which began in earnest during the Sukarno years and flowed through the bulk of the New Order. Modernist freeways? Oh heck yeah--Robert Moses is pretty much the definitive proponent. A postmodernist freeway? I'd nominate the destroyed Embarcadero Freeway, without going into the details. For a really fun read on this stuff read David Harvey's Condition of Postmodernity. Or read a bit about Le Corbusier. Anyway, modernism was a HUGE part of Jakarta's history. But don't take my word for it. Have a look at Abidin Kusno's fabulous work. Anyway, with that said, I think that single word--"modernist"--really helps to clarify, expand, and inform the transformations of Jakarta from 1945-present. Regards, --Smilo Don 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, unless you can provide a reliable source that those all projects mentioned in the article are having modernist architecture style. It's not only just a word of "modern", but it's an architecture style. I'm not going to debate about this, but please just give the source. — Indon (reply) — 03:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a really interesting history, stemming from Sukarno. Here's a quick overview of Kusno's chapter 2: "In this account, as this chapter will show, the building of a stadium, monuments, grand avenue, and vast public spaces... why was so-called modernist architecture and urban design chosen... How could modernist architecture...ultimately represent a national polity...? This chapter suggests that, in harnessing modernist architecture to the cause of his nation-building project, Sukarno's aim was to put into place..." (pp. 51-2 from Kusno 2000). There's heaps more from Kusno's wonderful work--he goes into great detail about modernism in Jakarta. See also the chapter conclusions, 67-70. Virtually all major projects were undertaken with a modernist bent. Basically, for Kusno, the question isn't whether Sukarno and Suharto implemented modernist style architecture and planning, the question is why they did so. I hope that clears things up. Cheers, --Smilo Don 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Listing references here that refer to the topic in general, is not the same as accurately representing those references in an article. The current use of 'modernist' is still sloppy and should be changed. Indeed, the (selected) quotations suggest that you use the term 'modernist' far more loosely than in Kusno. That you like the term, find it interesting, or believe it would be convenient "single-word" that "speaks volumes" doesn't really matter if it isn't accurate. No doubt the Kusno reference contains valuable info that could go in here - but once again, the use of referencing is sloppy and self-serving, requiring ongoing examination. Furthermore, modernism was a huge part of all architecture in the 50-70's. Specific Indonesia/Jakartan discussion would be more useful than sloppy generalisations. --Merbabu 05:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(Let's try to use our nice words, okay? 'Self-serving' and 'sloppy' are pretty harsh, at least where I come from.) Kusno indeed is very careful about the word "modernist," but uses the word to capture the sense of an intellectual-philosophical-political orientation. He uses the word dozens and dozens of times to describe Sukarno's approach. Again, it's not a question of whether but why. Even Monas (which has architectural references going back to India) has a strong modernist element. Sukarno's modernism isn't exactly shocking news: Sukarno himself was trained as a modern architect. He was a socialist of an era when socialism and modernism were closely linked. Kusno's work is a rather definitive work on the subject and Kusno very specifically shows how Jakarta was to be a modern ornament for the world to see--a sign of "progress," "development," "socialism," and so forth. Moreover, it has been well-received and sustained in the literature. There are also a couple of very good essays in Peter Nas' Urban Symbolism and some helpful remarks in Bishwapriya Sanyal's Comparative Planning Cultures. I think I've used Kusno very faithfully. It would be more faithful still to explain the discursive problems contained in the word "modernist" but that would be a project for modernism, not Jakarta.

The point of adding the word "modernist" to the description of Sukarno's Jakarta is to highlight Sukarno's agenda and his application of the idea in Jakarta; and to inform the reader of lasting and indelible characteristics in the city's physical geography. Sukarno was an unapologetic modernist, and Soeharto to varying degrees continued with the program for very different reasons (though he was interested in 'diversity' and in the invention of tradition much more than Sukarno). 'Hope that helps, --Smilo Don 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy is a perfect apt word when you misrepresent sources even as you type them here. To further insist on such an interpretation against at least two other editors is worse than sloppy. --Merbabu 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(Can we make this about modernism in Sukarno's Jakarta and not make it personal?) Have I misrepresented a word of Kusno? I'm a bit dumbfounded. I thought I'd tried, in good faith, to show that modernism was the presiding style for Sukarno's planning and architecture in Jakarta. Am I in error or have I done injustice to Kusno? I think this is an edit of intellectual integrity. If you have a substantial, referenced, objection, please say so. If I've misread Kusno or this period of Jakarta's physical design, please let me know. --Smilo Don 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been explained already - read it carefully and specfically to the points. --Merbabu 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Hey brother--please don't bark orders at me. I've given you several sources already, okay? Here's one more, at no extra charge: "In Indonesia, architect/president Sukarno's guided democracy was symbolized by a phalanx of Modernist buildings including a national monument, the Hotel Indonesia, the Independence Mosque, the Asian Games Complex and the Jakarta bypass..." (New Directions In Tropical Asian Architecture,Philip Goad, Anoma Pieris, Patrick Bingham-Hall. Periplus. 2005. pp. 24-5). Instead of being so dour about this, why not see it as an interesting contribution to WP:Jakarta? We all have different skill sets and knowledges, so let's appreciate one another and make this page in a cheerful, collaborative manner. It's the Indonesian way. --Smilo Don 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is the first time you've actually provided a quotation that is a little close to supporting your point - "a phalanx of modernist buildings including...the Jakarta bypass" Even that is poor English - a bypass is a building? really? I don't think that was their intent. --Merbabu 01:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Concluding sentence of History section

The concluding sentence of the History section read: "Jakarta has since been the center of Indonesian popular protest and national political instability, including several terms of ineffective Presidents, and a number Jemaah Islamiah-connected bombings." I separated the ideas from each other. The former sentence accidentally pushes a statist perspective (a la Soeharto, Hobbes, James Madison, etc.). E.g. popular unrest is bad, and frequent transitions of rule are bad. It's a very legit POV, but it does carve out a distinct ideological agenda. I tried to put a more neutral "remains a center of political activity;" without connecting bombings to the other two (even though they might arguably be linked). I also deleted the "weak" presidencies b/c I think that's very loaded and b/c SBY has been around for 3 years, with more to come. Granted, the end could still use some work, but that was my reasoning. Cheers, --Smilo Don 01:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How can we separate protests and political activity (such as short presidential terms)? Are they independent and purely coincidental? Not at all - they are inextricably linked. As for a "statist POV" I think that is pulling a very long bow and smacks of looking for issues where there isn't one - paranoia? Like structural adjustment, linking to pigeon box or definitional terms on wikipedia is problematic - even if the term is appropriate in the first place.

While there is a point in separating out Islamist-inspired bombings/murder, it clearly is related as it is the same time period, same city, and part of the same unstable atmosphere brought about by the weakening of the Indonesian govt and security forces (of which I intent to make no value judgement here). Keeping protests and political instability in the same sentence as User:Indon has restored, with the Islamist bombings separated is thus appropriate for now. --Merbabu 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(Maybe it's just me but I'd rather you didn't use the word 'paranoid.' I don't think that's very nice. If you could mollify your language, I'd be glad.) My only point is that "instability" is pejorative, when applied to multiple elections and a climate of mass demonstrations. As I said before, it follows a particular philosophical trajectory in the West--one famously articulated by Hobbes, and echoed right through the present. Another more libertarian/anarchist perspective might celebrate the mostly peaceful democratic events since '98--many observers from around the world are cautiously optimistic about democracy in Jakarta. --Smilo Don 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. RE: Theodore Friend. I could not find an instance where Friend links protests and instability, but (a) his book was written 5 yrs ago when things seemed more tumultuous and (b) it's a pretty value-laden assessment of the events. Friend does however verify the count of buildings and dead. I'll replace the LP source on those numbers with Friend's more scholarly citation.

Population vandalism, but WHY?

Am I missing something? Why do people keep vandalizing the population figures here and on Indonesia? I'm perplexed. It's a regular occurrence, via many users, so it forms a pattern. But what and why? Is there a politics being played out here? Smilo Don (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, why does it say 'Jakarta is the eleventh biggest city by population', when the link provided to a list of cities by population shows that it is tenth biggest? It doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.181.49 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Djakarta/Jakarta

The article suggests the city was renamed 'Jakarta' during the Japanese invasion, but earlier states it was 'Djakarta' at this time, and wasn't called 'Jakarta' until decades later. Can anyone clear this up? A recent edit on the Rem Koolhaas page suggests he lived in Jakarta, though he was there in the fifties. Is this right?Millichip (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is to confirm the second statement in your sentence: thus renamed from Batavia to Djakarta in 1942, and later by new spelling to present Jakarta. And indeed, mr. Rem Koolhaas lived there (with his parents) in 1952-1956 as mentioned. dAb by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Metro population again

The metro population figure appears unsourced. The only ref provided is to the government site which only lists the city figure Nil Einne (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Metro Area

Why is the population of the Jakarta metroplitan area not listed as with other major cities on Wikipedia? It seems the 2004 population figure is only for the physical province of Jakarta (DKI Jakarta). The provincial area of 660km2 became saturated in the early 1990s and the population of this area is no longer growing, whereas the surrounding urban area has exploded in terms of population growth. There is not even mention on the page of Jabodetabek, and attempts to rectify this have been met with revision reverts.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.223.95 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

President Barack Obama, D-Illinois

The President of the United States grew up in Jakarta, ages 2 - 10.

~ter890~ 12:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Aged 6-10. He only spent 4 years in Jakarta. Marmalade1975 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Marmalade1975, 5.27pm WIB, 7th February 2010

Foreign Influence

The concentration of wealth and political influence in the city means that it has much more noticeable foreign influence on its landscape and culture, an effect illustrated by the presence in the city of many major international fast-food chains, for example. Isn't that a bit ridiculous? Fast-food chains as indicators of culture? Can I just change that to foreign movies, concerts, or other more "refined" stuff? Rafaledeguerre Rafaledeguerre 07:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion under Problem header

Traffic

With more than 3.5 million vehicles, more than 10 million inhabitants and messy transportation system, Jakarta has one of the worst traffic problems in the world. Even with the addition of the new busway lines, most public transportation are privately owned with no clear route. Buses (metromini, kopaja, mayasari bakti) as well as minivans (mikrolet) are famous for stopping in the middle of the road to take up passengers.

Traffic jams are usually expected to last for hours. The government's three-in-one rule (vehicles have to contain more than 3 passengers to use the road) are rarely imposed and the CBD area are still jammed in the rush hours. The new busway are not helping much, because they took up special lanes that are not to be used for other vehicles. As a result, the road for other motorists are getting narrower, leading up to more traffic jams.

Finally, traffic policemen are rarely of help. Most of them are unseen during the traffic jams, but suddenly appear when you turn left in a supposedly no turn left from 9 to 11 am crossroad. more citation and references needed for the above part.. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniho (talk • contribs) 17:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

The pictures recently added are quite nice actually. Maybe an opportunity for a Gallery section at the bottom of the article? Kind rgds, K. --KARL RAN (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There should not be a gallery section. Please refer to WP:IG. This is an article not a flickr page. In fact, the licensing and attributions for all those new images was so appalling I removed them all. Vian kadal has a lot to learn. --Merbabu (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, then some work to do elsewhere I guess: National Monument (Indonesia) --KARL RAN (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

I made an edit to a translation on the page, but it was reversed...I'm new to this, but what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.35.230 (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ommited the Manila part in the transportation section

It was mentioned that Manila, along with Jakarta lack public transportation. Manila is different from Jakarta and the city does have a wide range of public transportation from jeepneys to buses, ferry, commuter rail and rapid transit system such as LRT/MRT.

I decided to omit parts of that section

Themanilaxperience (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Another overly proud Manila-fan that do not want to admit that their city have trasportation problems.... IMO Manila is no better (or even worst) compared to Jakarta in transportation matter. It was Singapore and Kuala Lumpur that have better transportation infrastructure than Jakarta or Manila. Yet this is the article about Jakarta.., so I agree, we should get rid the unnecessary (Manila) elements. Go ahead. (Gunkarta (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

Nickname

I've never met any locals that know that big durian nickname, and is thinking about deleting it because it would not be a nickname would it if its just a bunch of foreigners calling it such? I keep adding Old Sac as Sacramento's nickname but some nerd keeps on deleting it. So yeah, I guess it's time for me to take over the control over my hometown's article. Rafaledeguerre Rafaledeguerre 07:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a native Jakarta but never heard of the name Big Durian for Jakarta, or at least not popular among the locals. The only source I've heard that mentions Jakarta as Big Durian is from Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations "Indonesia" series. --Rochelimit (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Table in the transportation section

I don't think it's really important to be there. Besides, it's not well formatted/presented Guybrush1979 (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

24m metro population

The newspaper article for Footnote (2) which is used to support the 24 million person metro population figure does not actually contain that number in it. As such it should be deleted or marked as speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypter (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

An annoying editor

It appears this article is experiencing some continuous vandalistic edits by a certain person, who apparently does not like the idea of Jakarta being the captital city of Indonesia. Using an IP translator, I've concluded said person logs in from a computer in Jakarta. Furthermore, his/her writing style tells us that he/she is not very familiar with the English language, so together with the IP location, said person is likely to be a citizen of Jakarta. I don't suppose we can do something more... permanent about this, as the IP address changes every time. Or is there a way? HyperGaruda (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is:Wikipedia:SILVERLOCK#Semi-protection Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Annoying Editor strikes again.... After reading the information about the lock Bogomolov.PL mentions, it appears to me that every anonymous IP adress will be affected. It would be unfair to other anonymous users who do make helpfull edits. I'm wondering if there is something a bit more specific so that only those IP adresses which look like 125.16x.xxx.xxx -the IP of the editor who does not like Jakarta as a capital- are excluded from editing. I realise ofcourse that there are several IPs of this kind which do not belong to the AE, but excluding only those will not be as bad as excluding every single anonymous user. HyperGaruda (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gallery: To be or not to be

Sorry, but I see no reason to completely erase the Gallery section, and I see a very good reason to, at the very least, restore the Gallery section of 2010. I sometimes link directly to gallery sections, and I doubt that I'm the only one who does this. To erase a gallery section, or any section for that matter, might break links in other parts of Wikipedia. Comments? Suggestions?
— Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 12:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to have a gallery. Indeed, it is discouraged under WP:IG. --Merbabu (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Jakarta and Indonesia articles are big enough and played around with enough - they really do not need galleries - subsidiary articles should have photos (not galleries) - they are the place for limited numbers of photos. Satu Suro 12:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that I'm out!voted. You are the involved editors, so I happily accede to your reasoning. Thank you for responding; just food for thought.

— Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 13:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

nah not reallyt - we have responded by stating (1) merbabu re WP.IG and (2) my suggestion the photos available should be dispersed through to related articles rather than galleried into one - If you have an argument as to why major articles already large and cumbersome and regularly vandalised need the added galleries - go for it!~ maybe you know of examples elsewhere that work? otherwise it is not so much a vote as trying to understand the best use of photos - that might be related to jakarta on commons for instance Satu Suro 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If people need to see images of Jakarta, they could link to Wikimedia commons category:Jakarta, there is plenty of images there to be feast by one's eyes. Excessive gallery (like the one before) is terribly ugly and make the file/article too much or too heavy to be previewed by computers with poor capacity or poor bandwidth. That's why I encourage for articles to provides links to related category in wikimedia commons. However article with too little photo images are too dry and boring too, so we must achieve perfect symetry, golden mean or middle way (Gunkarta (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).

please expand the economy and demography section

I'd just like to ask some editors to expand the economy and demography section, it contains very little substantial information. In the demography section, for example, why don't we make it similar to the style of demography section in Indonesian page. The demography section of Jakarta needs to contain information about population and its growth, religion, ethnic, and education. So, by expanding demography section, we can delete education section which has too many "red link" and is not necessary in the page. In economy section, on the other hand, we need to add more information about economy by sectors where Jakarta people work in and its growth during decades, and its challenges. I do really need your help,,, especially those who has since guarded this page Merbabu and Gunkarta. Thank you. Salam--Mikael07 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that a lot of other items should be summarized/shortened combined with a link to new main articles. This page about Jakarta seems a bit too overwhelming to me and I myself am considering to create/expand an article about transportation. Haven't got the time yet though ;) HyperGaruda (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

BATAVIA

question: when clicking on Batavia i am redirected here. while quite a comprehensive article on modern Jakarta, it hardly covers the old city of Batavia at all. Jakarta was known as Batavia for hundreds of years, so is a seperate (historic) article still missing perhaps? warm regards, --Ms.Finesse (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There actually is an article on the history of Jakarta. Apparently the link on the Batavia disambugation page redirects to the main article about Jakarta. I'll give it an edit right away; thanks for notifying. HyperGaruda (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Illustrating slums

A hindu person by the username merbabu has made nothing but negative edits in indonesia related articles. he has repeated the same picture and all his edits in indonesian articles have been to remove any positives and exaggerate the negatives. please do this biased editing in your indian cities articles and not in indonesia related articles. all outdated reference put by this user need to be double checked. Though i must say that the putrid conditions of indian cities is really terrible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WutUdPwYMZo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.110.149 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you think another image would be better to illustrate the large impoverished areas of Jakarta, please feel free to make suggestions here. --Elekhh (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Elekhh. This anon user appears to be new and may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia fundamentals such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, etc. Alternatively, they may be a longer term editor who needs reminding of WP:SOCK. As for NPOV, like many Asian city and economy articles, there is a tendency to post pictures of gleaming skyscrapers, malls, and motorways. NPOV requires us to cover all aspects of a topic, and this includes poverty and wealth distribution. I trust the editor will now cease whitewashing the topic. I also trust that if they are an established user, they will cease their sockpuppetry.

As for the comments about “putrid” Indian cities, I’m going to ignore that except to say that I have no idea what would make the editor think I’m either Hindu or Indian. I’m sure the editor is very intelligent, but the comments are very stupid. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it wouldn't have been more appropriate to revert the IPs message as vandalism, rather than replying to it. If any other editor thinks that would have been a more appropriate action, please feel free to move/remove the whole section together with my comments. --Elekhh (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a temptation to remove the comments as PA and vandalism, but it's best to at least try engage with the editor first. --Merbabu (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

White-washers

So, as expected, the "Look at our skyscrapers and mall" editors have taken offence at a picture of a slum. But Jakarta is not just skyscrapers, toll roads, and monuments. Where are the kampungs where the vast majority live? Kampungs are the fundamental fabric of Jakarta and this article ignores it. NPOV requires all aspects of a topic to be discussed. --Merbabu (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC) PS - to be fair, there seems to be competition amongst all Asian city editors to over-emphasise how modern and sophisticated their cities are, while ignoring the more humble or even shameful parts. --Merbabu (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Find it interesting that they admit that poor people in Jakarta exist but then remove it saying the source is outdated, how is this so? 2006 was only five years ago and hardly outdated. Bidgee (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Mikael has written on my talk page that I have offended the poor. OK, so perhaps he could find a more appropriate picture of a kampung - the Indonesian villages within cities where the majority actually live And sure, not all are as destitute as the photo in question, but the point remains. But, I think Mikael it's about time Mikael got reported for violating 3RR. --Merbabu (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reported them to WP:3RRNB. Bidgee (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Need better pictures

Where's the pictures previously featured in this article? In particular 'jakarta after the rain' and jakarta chatedral? Present pictures are boring and dusty, making the impression of being lesser city than other capital like kuala lumpur, bangkok, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.215.36.183 (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the images on this article have become quite an issue these days, as you may have noticed. In short, images and pictures should only be used if they are helpful in explaining (part of) the article. A picture like 'jakarta after the rain' is not very informative, is it? Now, 'Jakarta Cathedral' might be more appropriate in an article about its architecture, as it helps to point out some building features, which may have been described in the text. You are welcome to add more images, as long as they help clarify the text. HyperGaruda (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The article has more than enough pictures. Perhaps the anonymous editor could verify that the Bangkok and KL articles have no problems with their pictures. At least stop comparing or competing. We are here to write articles, not to have inter-city competition about who is the most modern. --Merbabu (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes

There's a section in the article High-occupancy vehicle lane mentioning countries which have HOV lanes. I've only been to Jakarta a couple of times, and I wasn't driving - but I'm sure I remember these lanes, and also the "Car Jockeys" which as far as I know are unique to the city. Could someone update the HOV article with a reference to Jakarta, add a section here, and perhaps expand my section in Slugging Thanks Number774 (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

not a province?

having been living in a nearby province for some time, i feel the part that says "Jakarta is not part of any province, it is controlled directly by the national government" (in the box) is quite incorrect. jakarta itself is a province consisting of 5 cities and 1 regency. jakarta has its own local government though lacking city level people's council. what the others think about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.96.82.32 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither is technically correct, although yours is a bit closer. Jakarta is a "special capital region", similar to how Washington, D.C. is not a state. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

History: Prince Jayakarta - Jayawikarta

The short histrory section refers to both a "Prince Jayawikarta" and a "Prince Jayakarta". I assume this is a mistake and it should be "Jayawikarta" throughout? However, the wikipedia article on the Betawi People lists a "Sultan Jayakarta" among notable Betawi people. Is "Sultan Jayakarta" the same person as "Prince Jayakarta", the same as "Prince Jayawikarta"? It would be great if someone knowledgeable could clean this up a bit and bring clarity. Thank you. Pontus rosen (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that the prince's name is Jayawikarta. It is consistently used like that in the History of Jakarta. Jayakarta is the city's name and so it is likely that the contributor actually meant "prince of Jayakarta"; the same goes for the "sultan of Jayakarta" (although there is no such thing as a sultanate of Jayakarta, nor a sultan of Banten named Jayakarta). This is reflected in that the Indonesian language does not make a clear distinction such as in "Presiden Indonesia"; this could theoretically translate to both "President of Indonesia" (head of that country) and "President Indonesia" (a president named Indonesia). The latter would of course be silly, but it illustrates the ambiguity if one is not aware of the context. Anyway, I will edit the section (bit late, sorry). Thanks for notifying. HyperGaruda (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Jakarta

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Jakarta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jakarta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://english.seoul.go.kr/gtk/cg/cityhall.php?pidx=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Too many images

I learn that User talk:Rachman227 insist to add too many pictures. They are lovely I agree, but I think those images has overwhelmed the article, they just too much, and might harmed the featured article status of this article. The images should help the reader to understand the subjects better, instead of cluttering the page. Image should not sandwiching the article/body text. Wikipedia article is not an image gallery. Please learn more on Wikipedia:Manual of Style especially the section MoS:IMAGES. I will revert to a more stable and lean version with less pictures. Any suggestions, opinions, and objections are welcome and should be discussed in this talk page to reach consensus to avoid edit war. Thank you. Gunkarta talk 16:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jakarta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/tr01-17.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jakarta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/tr01-17.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jakarta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Jakarta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't change the name of the governor until October

Before editing this article, please note that Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama is still governor until October. See http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/04/19/ahok-concedes-defeat-calls-on-supporters-to-move-on.html. Thanks Davidelit (Talk) 01:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jakarta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Sudirman Road 1. Jakarta.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Jakarta is a Province of Indonesia. not a city

See Provinces of Indonesia, Jakarta is one of 34 provinces of Indonesia. In Indonesia, province is the highest tier of the local government or level I region, while city or regency is on level II region. (Jakarta is not a city)

A city has a mayor, A province headed by a governor; Jakarta headed by a governor. (Jakarta is a province)

Jakarta has five cities and a regency. (Is a city has five mayors and a regent?)

In Fact, Jakarta in real sense is "Province of Jakarta", not "Jakarta City". It is a common misconception to call Jakarta as the largest city, when the truth is Jakarta is one of provinces in Indonesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NouVa (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like Jakarta mirrors New York, London, and many other major cities that have sub-divisions.

Also, if Jakarta is not a city, what is the capital city of Indonesia? —C.Fred (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As I know, New York is a state (level I region) in United States equal with Jakarta is a province (level I region) in Indonesia, while "New York City" is a city (level II region) located in the state of New York.

Are you sure Jakarta mirrors London? In fact, London is a city (read the article) located in the county of Greater London (level I region).

As comparison=

Country _________ = Indonesia____________________________ - United States_______ - England

First tier region ___ = Jakarta (province)____________________ - New York (state)_____ - Greater London (county)

Second tier region _ = Central Jakarta (administrative city)_____ - New York City (city)_______ - London (city)

For your information, In some countries, capital area is not always a city, For example: capital of Japan is Tokyo (Tokyo is often referred to as a city, but is officially known and governed as a "metropolitan Prefecture"), most people acknowledge capital city of Belgium is Brussels (de facto), although it is actually a Regions of Belgium while City of Brussels (de jure) is the real capital of Belgium. Therefore, the capital of Indonesia is a Province (There is no capital city in Indonesia) = NouVa (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You're mixing the definition of "city" as a urban/geographical term and "city" as a political administration. Jakarta is still a city by urban/geographical definition. Singapore is a country, but it's still a city. Berlin is a state, but it it's still a city. FYI, Jakarta's governor office is called "Balai Kota" or city hall [5], not province hall lol. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jakarta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606051106/http://jakarta.bps.go.id/flip/jda2013/ to http://jakarta.bps.go.id/flip/jda2013/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/12/27/bpk-slams-city-s-efforts-manage-liquid-waste.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://beritajakarta.com/en/read/2632/Maja_River_in_Pegadungan_Strewn_with_Water_Hyacinth_and_Mud
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606051106/http://jakarta.bps.go.id/flip/jda2013/ to http://jakarta.bps.go.id/flip/jda2013/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Jakarta is not a Special Capital Region

Jakarta is a province, official name is Special Capital Region of Jakarta. Other region such as Aceh, Special Region of Yogyakarta, Papua, and West Papua is also a province, not Special Region. Hddty. (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Montage

@Merbabu said "they may be newer and higher res. But they are worse pictures". First off, that is a very subjective claim, you can't just revert the montage based on the justification that you think they are worse pictures. You said it yourself, they are newer and higher resolution, which are the two standard key elements to an effective montage and ultimately, makes them in fact better pictures. "Previous montage had far more iconic and representative photos", okay, so? I chose only a select bunch of landmarks in the montage to summarize the city. If you look at London, Paris, NYC, Tokyo, etc. all of their montages are simple and only show a few select key landmarks. There are many more iconic sights in each city that could have been featured, but those sights are instead shown in elsewhere in article. All of the landmarks from the outdated previous montage that I left out are, yes, shown elsewhere on the page. The size differences is not nearly as drastic to warrant it "too bloated" or "bigger than big". The size is pretty standard, as a matter of fact. Why make this a big deal? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, the Taman Mini Indonesia Indah image in the current montage is nowhere near iconic. The most iconic sight of the entire park is the castle, and it should be used instead. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A few comments:

"Why make it a big deal"? Because the lead object of any article is indeed a big deal. Saying it isn't is not a good argument...if it wasn't a big deal, why are you here on talk page arguing your point? If you don't think it's a big deal, maybe you could just leave it alone? "It's not a big deal" is not a justification.
Arguing something is "subjective" is a not an argument either. If it is subjective, then your preference is no better than mine. It works both ways. Sure, there is an element of subjectivity, but the choices as I note below, have a lot of objectivity justifications.
We should be judging photos how they look in the context of the page. Resolution is a secondary concern and only useful if one wants to click and use the image for something else. The primary purpose and criteria to judge a photo in an article is how it works with the rest of the page before it is clicked on (and in the overwhelming number of cases, pics are viewed in the context of a whole article page, and not clicked on.)
And the main point - the actual photos chosen - they are much better composed - lower res, but much better photography. The pic of monas with the flags is iconic - two key national emblems.

The new monas pic is a standard boring photo with a lot of sky - not striking like the other.
The old istana pic is much better composed.
The istiqlal mosque pic shows its size and grandeur and is again, well composed.
Likewise again, the old kota museum is a much better photo.
Even the stadium shot is iconic.
Your skyline shot is arguably better - but composition is not as striking as the other, it is however brighter. The original skyline photo could be brightened though.
The Gama tower photo is a boring column.
Also, you've included a kitsch disney inspired faux castle over the kota museum?
The Welcome Monument/Hyatt/HI photo could have been excellent. But the bus is annoying.
In summary, the old montage was well thought thru and executed. Credit to it's maker.

And yes, just because other articles have large (wide and long) bloating info boxes doesn't mean we should accept it in other places. "Pretty standard" - is not a justification to introduce problems here.
Yes, the case for including a map of taman mini is unusual, potentially dubious. The intent was to show how varied the place is - the "mini Indonesia" aspect. I think that is informative and encyclopedic. The castle photo is a photo of a faux pastiche of some disney creation. But yes, it's a more striking photo even though the map is more encyclopedic.
Maybe we could include some Jakarta slums and traffic jams? Ie, to be truly representative of the city? It's interesting how the Asian City montages never have some of this real stuff. I've always said it's about a competitive "Look at me" tourist-brochure style pictures. If it wasn't, then editors would be more willing to include slums or traffic jams, or pollution, etc.
It would be simpler with one lead pic. --Merbabu (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"The primary purpose and criteria to judge a photo in an article is how it works with the rest of the page". As you didn't seem to address this point that I made, I am not going to bother rewriting the same thing.

Copying & paste what I wrote before: "If you look at London, Paris, NYC, Tokyo, etc. all of their montages are simple [yet informative] and only show a few select key landmarks. There are many more iconic sights in each city that could have been featured, but those sights are instead shown in elsewhere in article. All of the landmarks from the outdated previous montage that I left out are, yes, shown elsewhere on the page."

The stadium shot is iconic, mosque is well composed, the hotel looks excellent and so on and so forth, that's great! You can replace the photos that are already found within the article to your preferred ones, I don't care. I only chose a few perhaps the MOST iconic landmarks to include in the montage. Literally every city has stadiums, what makes the one in Jakarta strikingly different? Does it really need to be included in the montage? It's just a stadium (and it's already seen in the sports section).

Though the I added the Gama Tower in my proposed montage as it is the tallest building in the entire city, I am fine with switching it out for a more iconic landmark, you can provide a suggestion (maybe the mosque or something else, not the stadium). I don't really find the current monas image that much strikingly better as you described, but honestly it could go either way, that's not a big of a deal.

The Taman Mini Indonesia Indah castle is the most iconic and recognizable landmark of the entire park. It instantly says "Jakarta!" with its unique color, and at least it's more recognizable than the museum. I chuckled a bit when you wrote this, how useful do you think readers will find images of "slums and pollution" in in the infobox montage? It be should be simple and contain images that are representative AND useful to understanding the city and its sites. This is an encyclopedia, not a news article. Take everything with a grain of salt. And yes, the claim "the previous photos are worse" is a very subjective claim. I never went out of the blue said anything you've done is better or worse, I actually analyzed the elements of each component of the montage and determined which one is more suitable.

So in summary, the montage

Should have: the skyline image, the mini park castle, the mona, the presidential palace and the national museum
at MOST have 6 images
Shouldn't have: the stadium, the kota museum, jakarta old town, or the hotel with the bus parked in front
Maybe look something like this :

File:Jakarta-Skyline-from-Bund.jpg

File:Gama Tower, Jakarta.jpg

File:The National Monument, Jakarta, Indonesia (cropped).jpg

ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, i really dont' care that much anymore. Change it. Then I might change it too. --Merbabu (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Consensus"

File:Jakarta-Skyline-from-Bund.jpg

File:Gama Tower, Jakarta.jpg

File:The National Monument, Jakarta, Indonesia (cropped).jpg

File:Jakarta-Skyline-from-Bund.jpg

File:Mosque-IMG 3537.JPG

File:Monas flags 1a.JPG9.jpg

Noting there was no agreement on the change from this montage - it was only changed a week or so ago - by Nikon alone. I did agree, I simply relented. And now an anon IP also reverted back to the old montage. I also note that Nikon also said we could change them. However, current behavior suggests that Niknon is acting alone on this one. Unless there is agreement, then i suggest it is reverted back to the original. --Merbabu (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mebararbubu, since when did I say you can change them? I said you can provide ideas to improve the montage, not downright change them without discussion. By the way, things on here are not decided by the majority, and you literally said I could change it, and I did. But you reverted it, saying that we could play "the consensus game" over and over. My friend, that is what Wikipedia is. I've warned the IP about removing content without explanation, and looking back what he/she has done to other articles in 2017, the IP is that much closer to getting blocked. We need more opinions from other editors. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nkon, it's not up to you to decide what happens. You're not the gate keeper. Your actions are in bad faith. Thanks for clarify that you will not allow any changes - if that is the case, then I will restore to the longstanding montage until there is agreement to change. Also noting that it's easier to persuade people if one is nice. --Merbabu (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Before shopping around for other opinions, maybe you could address my concerns. And consensus means collaboration and compromise. How have you collaborated or compromised? Or is it 100% your way only? --Merbabu (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It's funny how you think I am not allowing "any" changes, even when I have said countless times that "any potential changes should be discussed on the talk page before implementing". I am happy to work things out fairly, only if they are too. The IP clearly hasn't done this, and you have yet to address my response in the section above. Which part of that assumes that I am making bad faith? Am I not letting any changes whatsoever to the montage? Am I purposely deceiving or misleading anyone? Am I making any personal attacks? Per WP:AOBF, it looks like your response might constitute as a personal attack. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

From where I sit, it's double standards. You are happy to unilaterally implement your changes, but demand others seek your permission (and please let's dispense with silly notes as hidden text).--Merbabu (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to re-comment on your points. My frustration above is because it takes time...and you ignored my points...then said I ignored yours. If you want a detailed response, it will take time. And I would expect to see you collaborate and compromise. Otherwise it's a waste of time. I relented (2 May) more out of lack of time and I was expecting you to be able to compromise with images, but then saw that you weren't interested in compromise. So if you insist any changes must be agreed on talk page first, we can go back to the original and discuss. --Merbabu (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please, give me your points. Just because I'm not willing to accept your ideas instantly and cheerfully does not make me unwillingly to collaborate. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I went to some trouble and time to explain my position on each photo. You accepted 0% of it. You went 100% with your selection. Sure, then i was too lazy to argue further I relented (and expected the final selection could be changed a little). Then, when i tried to modify it and you claimed "against consensus". Which consensus? And, can you show me one single piece of compromise from you? As I see it it's 100% your way. So since you want to play "no consensus" games, it's now back to the original longstanding version. --Merbabu (talk)

It will take me a day or two to re-issue my points. In the meantime, you could either way, or review what I've already written above.

Also, I'd be interested in what you think consensus looks like. So far, you've said "it's not majority" (fine) and since you reject 100% of my points, you'll shop for other opinion (not so fine). That's not consensus.--Merbabu (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Old montage

File:Jakarta Pictures-1.jpg

New montage

Hi, as the creator of the old version, I would like to comments about the photo montage. I must agree to most of Merbabu's argument, the old one looks better and has a pleasant composition. However, I noted that the new skyline proposed by Nkon21 looks far better than the old one. Indeed the benefit of composing a dedicated montage in a single file is the creator could play with cropping and composition more liberally, which help to achieve better looks and better focus, which can not be done by solely using existing proportion of the selected pictures. Taking notes and opinion from you both, I proposed to improve the old one. Having move and change some images, I have upload the newer version of the montage. Hope it will be an improvement, please tell me what you think. Thank you. Gunkarta talk 17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gunkarta. I think it's an improvement - it's taken your great original montage, and made it even better. Particularly the skyline photo suggested by Nkon. I found it very hard to get a good composition with the newer template.

Perhaps we could discuss further changes, but what you've just provided is already an improvement on your (great) original. --Merbabu (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Further comment: It's also a better aspect ration - ie, shorter. So it won't be as big in the page. I think this is a good thing. Nkon, what do you think of the changes? Could we implement this one now as good progress? And then discuss any further changes? --Merbabu (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gunkarta:, @Nkon21: - it's been a few weeks - as I said above, i think Gunkarta's revised version is great. It keeps some of the key elements that make the existing so effective while updating with some improvements to the selection. Also, it keeps the advantages of the existing composition. I propose we update the main page with it. regards, --Merbabu (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I agreed for the update, thank you @Merbabu:. Gunkarta talk 13:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Merbabu:, I've just replaced the old montage with the new one. Gunkarta talk 06:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gunkarta: - very nice. thank you --Merbabu (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary

In summary, my annoyance arose after you changed the montage to 100% what you wanted after 100% dismissing my concerns (not even 10% comprise was shown) only because i said I indicated that although i didn't support, i wasn't in the mood to debate. I relented, rather than us reaching agreement. As such, i would have thought you might show some collaborative skills when I was WP:BOLD and made a change to one of your six photos. Instead, you reverted and made a narky comment about a note that you provided (and which i didn't read, and wasn't required anyway as we have policies on how to edit), and claimed it was against "consensus". And, consensus is not "winner takes all". --Merbabu (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Two comments

Skyline

Orang Betawi

Tanjung Priok / Tandjung Priok

Stupid

The Map

Lists

Removal of image?

Twin Towns

three in one rule

Motorbike new rule

Object vital

More history

February 2007 floods in Jakarta

Population stats don't make sense

Shanty towns

Issue of a merging and how to incorporate information into main article

Don't you think the history section is too long?

Banten had close relationship with Dutch?

Is BeritaJakarta.com reliable?

Need help, first English house in 1615

Issue higher up on talk list worthy of careful consideration - added to foot of page

Orang Betawi

Structural adjustment in Indonesia

Modernist freeways? Fun with Harvey and Kusno

Concluding sentence of History section

Population vandalism, but WHY?

Djakarta/Jakarta

Metro population again

Metro Area

President Barack Obama, D-Illinois

Categories

Foreign Influence

Suggestion under Problem header

Traffic

Pictures

Confusion

Ommited the Manila part in the transportation section

Nickname

Table in the transportation section

24m metro population

An annoying editor

Gallery: To be or not to be

please expand the economy and demography section

BATAVIA

Illustrating slums

White-washers

Need better pictures

High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes

not a province?

History: Prince Jayakarta - Jayawikarta

Timeline of Jakarta

External links modified

External links modified

Too many images

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Please don't change the name of the governor until October

External links modified

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

Jakarta is a Province of Indonesia. not a city

External links modified

Jakarta is not a Special Capital Region

Montage

"Consensus"

Summary