Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia

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

Good article reassessment for Nepenthes rajah

[edit]

Nepenthes rajah has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Sibu

[edit]

Sibu has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Iskandar of Johor

[edit]

Iskandar of Johor has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS question

[edit]

Hello all,

Is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Malaysia-related articles ready for consensus yet?

Thanks so much!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 04:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Malaysia MOS hasn't been touched since 2021, some common practices at the time there may have changed since them and someone aought to go through it (such as the name of Tun Abdul Razak's page). Also as for as I'm aware the page still needs an RFC. DervotNum4 (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Kuala Terengganu

[edit]

Kuala Terengganu has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Billboard Malaysia Songs#Requested move 7 December 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Billboard Malaysia Songs#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandar Baru Selayang and Bandar Putra, Kuantan

[edit]

These stubs need expanding and sourcing. Please help. Bearian (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another stub needing sourcing is Batu Hitam. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New location map for Malaysian cities and municipalities

[edit]

Greetings all.

I have created a new location map of cities and municipalities in Malaysia at Module:Location map/data/Malaysia municipalities. Credits to Derkommander0916 for the municipal boundaries. The base map being SVG, further improvements are still doable.

The idea is to use this map for articles about cities, municipalities and local governments. For the time being, I have added this map in select articles below.

Feel free to drop any suggestions or comments regarding this. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Tawau

[edit]

Tawau has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Johor Bahru

[edit]

Johor Bahru has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. hundenvonPG (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need eyes on this new user's contributions

[edit]

Hello. Not sure if there are many people actively watching this page, but I'd appreciate it if someone could look into Mesbmr6710 (talk · contribs)'s recent article creations. A lot (if not all) of them exhibit features that indicate the texts were AI-generated. I've tagged Malaccan-Siamese war for deletion, as so many things are wrong there, with only fake references, I don't think it can be saved without a complete rewrite. But I'm not quite sure about their other articles, as I'm neither familiar with the history nor the language. There's Battle of Fort Legap, Battle of Sakilkilo Village, Battle of Tebedu and Gumbang, KD Sri Selangor incident, Operation Gubir II, Raid on Kalabakan, Whisper Enemy War, Bintangor, Sarawak#Operation Ngayau III, Draft:Battle of Batu Pahat (1456), Draft:Operation Rambo II, and Draft:Singaporean 2nd Infantry ambush. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe at least half of their articles are actually valid, although highly obscure in nature. Most of his articles relate to Konfrontasi, the Malacca Sultanate, and the Second Emergency.
However, they're probably not doing a good job on references. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Fort Legap appears to be just a direct copy of Kanang anak Langkau, but with sources, which does make me suspect the sources are made up. CMD (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked the articles. I retract what I said earlier. They took preexisting articles (like Gubir shootdown) and spun them into seperate articles (Operation Gubir II), hence the large amounts of incomplete citations (as they did not copy the references into their articles).
Some of the articles they created are technically valid (considering some are actual historical events), but he exaggerated some content. I think the best way is to revert the articles back to drafts or rewrite them from the ground up. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is blocked as a sockpuppet. Given the apparent fake sourcing and the sockpuppeting, I'm going to G5 these articles. CMD (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out there was a mistake in the SPI closure, so the G5 deletions weren't valid. I've notified the deleting admin. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. The sources I used in the article Battle of Fort Legap are legitimate and not fake. I understand there may be some confusion, but the article is not copied from Kanang anak Langkau. While there may be some overlapping content due to the nature of both articles being related to similar historical events, the focus and context are different. Kanang anak Langkau discusses a broader narrative, whereas Battle of Fort Legap focuses specifically on a different incident. I encourage further reading on both topics, as there may be nuances that differentiate them. If you'd like further clarification or wish to discuss the references used, I'm more than happy to assist. Mesbmr6710 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Battle of Fort Legap was not copied from Kanang anak Langkau, then how did it end up with identical wording? CMD (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attention. I would like to clarify that the articles I have written are based on original sources that I have found. However, I acknowledge that these sources are somewhat limited and not as abundant as one might expect. I have made every effort to ensure the information is accurate, but I understand there may be shortcomings in the references. If there are any suggestions to improve or add more reliable sources, I would greatly appreciate them. Mesbmr6710 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at others, they seem to be unattributed translations from id.wiki, for example Battle of Sakilkilo Village is a direct translation of id:Pertempuran Kampung Sakilkilo. CMD (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CMD (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content at KD Selangor was originally added on 11 December by 2001:D08:D8:D574:CCCC:7E1E:F7E0:5A45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). --Paul_012 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks, I saw an couple of IPs in the draft too. There is also this new user who seems to have redrafted the deleted Whisper Enemy War article. CMD (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick glance through the so-called "Whisper Enemy War" draft (naming is just, weird), similar issues can be found: prose appears heavily embellished, obscure citations and at least one isn't even a proper reference.
With regards to those obscure references (typically little-heard of local publishers or websites), they should be taken with a pinch of salt, given historical revisionism that is on the rise in Malaysian history/literature (some recent instances: [1], [2] and [3])
Side note, just hilarious how Francis Light is listed as a belligerent. Last I checked, he passed on in 1794; he probably crawled out of his grave or something to have participated in the "whisper wars". hundenvonPG (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's me Mesbmr6710 (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to see if Mesbmr6710 might be willing to learn, but their above messages, which read very unhumanlike, and other interactions such as outright lying about their use of AI-generated text (which is evidently clear at Malaccan-Siamese war, as demonstrated at the AfD), as well as signing a talk page comment with a fake signature, are stretching WP:AGF and raising serious WP:CIR issues. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish for bad faith towards the editor in this case because the articles he created are technically acceptable (and most importantly, rather obscure and in need for an expansion towards that category) but requiring major cleanups and re-referencing.
Although "historical revisionism" is on the rise in Malaysia, I don't want to dispel all references as fakes but to closely cross-check them properly, just so it doesn't become a rather embarassing case of gatekeeping here. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mesbmr6710, any more unexplained talk page blanking and you will be brought to the admins. Mark my words.

Courtesy pinging @Paul 012, Chipmunkdavis, and PenangLion: on said user's conduct. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Special:Diff/1267222323, which blanked this entire talk page. No explanation given whatsoever. hundenvonPG (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the WP:COPYWITHIN attribution for Battle of Fort Legap, but I am not sure how to verify if the sources are real. It may be best to simply redirect it, and similar articles, to where in en.wiki they were copied from. The translations from id.wiki presumably are a different matter, they will need to be properly attributed as translations which they are currently not (and have their wikidata links fixed), but so far no-one has raised a specific issue with them. The last group are the ones which don't seem to be copied from elsewhere, they might be have to be specifically checked. CMD (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mesbmr6710 has been indef blocked by Sandstein for WP:NOTHERE. Given their conduct (incivility, unwillingness to cooperate), a block was probably coming sooner or later. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independently of this conversation, several of the articles have been moved to draftspace. I have created the translation tags and wikidata items for Raid on Kalabakan, and redirected Battle of Fort Legap. That leaves just Singaporean 2nd Infantry ambush in the mainspace. I can't find where it's copied from, if it is. The sources seem at least tangentially relevant, however the gbooks links don't work which is bizarre, and makes me wonder if they were also generated with an llm. The isbns seem correct though. CMD (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest version of Singaporean 2nd Infantry ambush containing a citation to the URL eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/issue/beritaharian19650304-1?utm_source=chatgpt.com, with the tracking parameter intact, does suggest that that's indeed the case. It's short enough though that it might be fine to keep if someone is willing to manually verify the text and add proper sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh. I did check the accessible sources, a mixture of did back up the text (eg. number of deaths) and didn't. However, I wouldn't say any of them established notability as a distinct incident. CMD (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of socks have popped up, including the one I mentioned above. In the meantime, I have done a bit more digging and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singaporean 2nd Infantry ambush. CMD (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need more work on Azman Hashim

[edit]

He is allegedly one of the riches men in Malaysia, but his article is a mess. Please fix the issues identified by tags. Bearian (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for NPOV Rendang

[edit]

Hello, I notice there is an ongoing dispute on Rendang origin and its theory.

I would like to notify about this here, to engage more editors to participate in the discussion (in Rendang talk page) and gain more input to achieve consensus. Audit2020 (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATETIES question

[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering whether Malaysian-topic articles should consistently use the DMY date format per MOS:DATETIES? Fork99 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, it is the most common format and the format used officially. CMD (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, was just double checking as a few stray ETS railway station articles I clicked on used MDY for some reason. Fork99 (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized Languages for Infoboxes

[edit]

To ensure consistency in West Malaysian-related Wikipedia articles, I propose that infoboxes should consistently include Malay, Simplified Chinese, and Tamil with their respective romanizations.

What to include:

Malay (Rumi script) is the national and official language of Malaysia, as established by Article 152 of the Federal Constitution. It is the primary language used in government. Since it serves as the primary language of governance and formal communication, its inclusion in Wikipedia infoboxes should be on top of all other languages. Malay (Jawi Script) should also be included in Malaysia-related infoboxes because it is an official script in many states, such as Kelantan, Terengganu, and Pahang. Jawi has deep historical roots in for the Malay language, having been the primary script for Malay before colonial rule. It continues to be used in government and taught in schools. This should also apply to Sabah and Sarawak.

Simplified Chinese (简体中文) and Pinyin (汉语拼音) is used as the official writing system of Malaysia’s Chinese community, which constitutes a the second largest ethnicity. While Chinese is not an official language, Simplified Chinese is used as the medium of instruction in many Chinese-language primary schools and is used in the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC). Simplified Chinese is also used in Malaysian media, with major newspapers such as Sin Chew Daily, China Press, and Nanyang Siang Pau, as well as TV networks like 8TV and Astro AEC, broadcasting in Mandarin. Given its widespread use, the inclusion Simplified Chinese in Wikipedia infoboxes should be 2nd below Malay. This should also apply to Sabah and Sarawak.

Tamil (தமிழ்) and its romanization should be included as it is the primary language of the Indian Malaysian community, the third largest community in Malaysia. There are over 500 Tamil primary schools in Malaysia where it remains a strong medium of instruction. Tamil newspapers like Malaysia Nanban and Tamil Nesan serve the Tamil-speaking community. Including Tamil as the 3rd language below Simplified Chinese in Wikipedia infoboxes acknowledges its role as a major language in Malaysia. This is unnecessary Sabah and Sarawak due to a lack of a sizable Indian Malaysian community.

What not to include:

Traditional Chinese (繁體中文) should not be used in Malaysia-related infoboxes because Simplified Chinese is the standard script used by Malaysian Chinese speakers since 1981. Similarly to Singapore, where infoboxes do not include traditional Chinese characters, Mandarin education in Malaysia follows the Simplified Chinese system, and major newspapers, TV channels, and government translations primarily use Simplified Chinese. While some older generations and specific cultural or religious texts may use Traditional Chinese, it is not the dominant script. Standardizing Simplified Chinese ensures consistency and better accessibility for most Chinese-speaking Malaysians.

Chinese dialects and their romanizations should not be included in Malaysia-related infoboxes because they lack a standardized written form and are not commonly used in official contexts. While dialects like Hokkien, Cantonese, and Hakka are widely spoken among Malaysian Chinese communities, they are primarily oral languages. Written communication, media, and education in Malaysia predominantly use Mandarin in Simplified Chinese script. Guotaian (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our previous discussions have reached a consensus on including by default just Rumi Malay and English. Malay is the only official language, and we include English because this is en.wiki. Additional languages are added when directly relevant to the subject, such as a BLP where the subject often uses a name in a different script. CMD (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, most articles of places (eg. City, towns, states) have multiple languages. The standardization that I am suggesting should be practiced when it comes to their Infoboxes' language section. Guotaian (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The usual standard is just Malay and English, if there are others you can remove them. CMD (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Malaysia&oldid=1276923354"