This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Indonesia and
Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
volcanoes,
volcanology,
igneous petrology, and
related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
This article is written in the form of a narrative, improper in an encyclopaedic setting. Replaced the very general cleanup tag with a specific tone one. --
Joshua Boniface16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
This article is a disgrace! Should either be re-written or it deserves AFd - for no refs, no sources, very poor writing,and other crimes not worth drawing attention to.
SatuSuro13:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)reply
YEs - completely agree. This article is rubbish but the topic is very important. I made a start, but when i get the time i will work on it much more - anyone else of course feel free in the meantime. I think i will start by ripping out most of what is here, merge this page with the page for the
Category:Volcanoes_of_Java and provide GENERAL info on the significance of volcanoes to Java (ecologically, culturally, historically, etc) rather than reams of info on specific mountains which would belong on individual mountain pages. I have some reasonably academic sources at home on this - but time is the issue.
Merbabu02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much for your response and agreement.. Time is always the issue :) I am about to uncover materials in the near future.
SatuSuro09:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I am not sure if this article is necessary, as each volcanoe has its own article page. It would be better to put this article as category page as Merbabu suggested. I am going to help, but in the specific each volcanoe section. I voted for AFD. —
Indon07:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply
It was important for an overview (sigh) with a list and links, but now its gone for afd (sigh) - the context of the original message above was - either re-written.. or afd for the very specific reason as an overview article, it can place linking information that would otherwise be repeated in all the separate volcano articles. The problem with putting up for afd is that editors with no knowledge of java (is it coffee? or the programming language) or volcanoes tend to join in (sigh). Merbabu had agreed but the topic is very important which I agree having lived in the shadow of an active javan volcano (sigh) Here we go again!
SatuSuro08:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Afd?
Its not on the log - it would be better to have a discussion here first.
It should be retained as an overview article:
List of Volcanoes in Java - active and extinct
Map of Volcanoes
General geological reasons (java trench, subduction zone)
What about shifing that sort of info to the category Volcanoes of Java - and then linking this page to the category? Is there anything stopping us making an article out of the category page? That way we have this general info and can "automatically" update the list - AND it is all in one spot. One problem with wikipedia is you often get this kind of repetition. But, once again, it is the time to do it.
Merbabu12:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply
The article as a "mother" article can link to the others - IMHO you cannot simply put the info into the the catgory page, but maybe you can.
SatuSuro13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, the idea of using the category page only occured to me the other day - seems to make better sense than two similar pages (ie, this one and the category). Who says we can't? ;-). Anyway, i started the process the other day. Just to be clear, i would not suggest moving much of the info that is in this article - quality is an issue. Rather, start again with the type of info that you and i (and hopefully some of the others soon) have suggested here.
Merbabu14:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Indonesia and
Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
volcanoes,
volcanology,
igneous petrology, and
related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
This article is written in the form of a narrative, improper in an encyclopaedic setting. Replaced the very general cleanup tag with a specific tone one. --
Joshua Boniface16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
This article is a disgrace! Should either be re-written or it deserves AFd - for no refs, no sources, very poor writing,and other crimes not worth drawing attention to.
SatuSuro13:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)reply
YEs - completely agree. This article is rubbish but the topic is very important. I made a start, but when i get the time i will work on it much more - anyone else of course feel free in the meantime. I think i will start by ripping out most of what is here, merge this page with the page for the
Category:Volcanoes_of_Java and provide GENERAL info on the significance of volcanoes to Java (ecologically, culturally, historically, etc) rather than reams of info on specific mountains which would belong on individual mountain pages. I have some reasonably academic sources at home on this - but time is the issue.
Merbabu02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much for your response and agreement.. Time is always the issue :) I am about to uncover materials in the near future.
SatuSuro09:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I am not sure if this article is necessary, as each volcanoe has its own article page. It would be better to put this article as category page as Merbabu suggested. I am going to help, but in the specific each volcanoe section. I voted for AFD. —
Indon07:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply
It was important for an overview (sigh) with a list and links, but now its gone for afd (sigh) - the context of the original message above was - either re-written.. or afd for the very specific reason as an overview article, it can place linking information that would otherwise be repeated in all the separate volcano articles. The problem with putting up for afd is that editors with no knowledge of java (is it coffee? or the programming language) or volcanoes tend to join in (sigh). Merbabu had agreed but the topic is very important which I agree having lived in the shadow of an active javan volcano (sigh) Here we go again!
SatuSuro08:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Afd?
Its not on the log - it would be better to have a discussion here first.
It should be retained as an overview article:
List of Volcanoes in Java - active and extinct
Map of Volcanoes
General geological reasons (java trench, subduction zone)
What about shifing that sort of info to the category Volcanoes of Java - and then linking this page to the category? Is there anything stopping us making an article out of the category page? That way we have this general info and can "automatically" update the list - AND it is all in one spot. One problem with wikipedia is you often get this kind of repetition. But, once again, it is the time to do it.
Merbabu12:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply
The article as a "mother" article can link to the others - IMHO you cannot simply put the info into the the catgory page, but maybe you can.
SatuSuro13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, the idea of using the category page only occured to me the other day - seems to make better sense than two similar pages (ie, this one and the category). Who says we can't? ;-). Anyway, i started the process the other day. Just to be clear, i would not suggest moving much of the info that is in this article - quality is an issue. Rather, start again with the type of info that you and i (and hopefully some of the others soon) have suggested here.
Merbabu14:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply