Talk:Borobudur

This article contains content imported from the English Wikipedia article on Borobudur. View the page revision history for a list of the authors.

Star nomination discussion

Borobudur

This is a slightly strange one as we do not yet have a monument at star status. I am therefore a little unsure about exactly how much academic detail about Borobudur should be included. I have tried not to dumb it down too much, whilst also bearing in mind that we are not an encyclopedia. It would be straightforward to add lots more detail, but I am unsure about the need for that?

The article also covers some nearby monuments. I have not though included any other types of nearby attractions or activities. I figured that the related temples on the Kedu Plain belong in a Borobudur article, but the local golf course doesn't! By necessity, the article is quite heavy with prose and relatively light on templated listings.

Heading off one question I can anticipate coming, I tried using a park template for this article some 2 years ago, and it does not work.

Anyway, I am now very pleased with the article, and think it is ripe for a star nomination. Finally, please remember to clear cache when viewing the article as ancient versions keep re-appearing (for me at least). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:30, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

• Support, My personal view is that most people who go somewhere like Borobudur will either expect at least the current depth of "academic" detail, worthy of such a site, or certainly appreciate the information that is currently provided. To make it any lighter would not be appropriate. As (WT-en) Burmesedays has suggested, the site itself determines an article that is quite heavy with prose and relatively light on templated listings. I also agree that the article could accommodate some more detail but it is adequately provided for in it's current form. It reads well. Is the ticket office still using an exchange rate of Rp 9,000 = US$1?(WT-en) felix 13:40, 26 August 2011 (EDT)--

• Comment. Thanks for the support Felix, but is it really necessary to be showing the measurement conversions which you have just added? I think this is both butt-ugly and unnecessary.--(WT-en) burmesedays 02:53, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

• • The manual of style strongly suggests conversions be included. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:13, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

• Yes, that is why I did them, so it would be MoS/Star article compliant. It does also help the people who are not acquainted with the metric system. I agree it can be a bit ugly at times but it is informing. I come across a lot of people who cannot visualise 100 mm, or 10 cm, and don't know if it is a yard long or a fraction of a foot, and others who are sure a foot is something that belongs in a shoe. Sorry if I made the article "butt ugly", that was not my intention and I hope you will forgive me. Remember it is the content that counts and it still remains quite attractive in the Borobudur article despite the feet.. -- (WT-en) felix 11:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

By the way (WT-en) Burmesedays, a little off topic but I am also having caching problems and have to keep clearing them, I assumed it was at my end though, but did think it was a bit odd I was getting the same issue using two entirely different browsers. It is not just related to the Borobudur article. The time-outs are also ongoing and I am getting occasional server not available and some 404 errors when trying to access WT articles or upload edits. Lasts for hours at a time. -- (WT-en) felix 11:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Indeed. But that's largely ignored I think? Certainly when looking around other star articles, that is the case. Showing the conversion of 2.5 cm to 1 inch (as a measure of ash fall during the 2010 eruption of Merapi) seems especially pointless to me. If that conversion has to to stay then so be it, but it's ugly to my eye. Same goes for saying a hotel is .... 200m (655 feet) from the entrance. For the sake of consistency, if these stay I will also have to convert other measurements in the article.--(WT-en) burmesedays 11:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

I agree that the hotel distance is a bit clunky but the ash measurement is useful to visualise the depth. I actually thought I had got all the measures.. My personal view is the dual measures do provide useful information. It is especially useful for longer trip distances, height of mountains and similar. However I agree 200 m (655 ft) looks clunky. I should really have been 200 m (650 ft) for the sake of tidiness and really is unecessary as (I hope) most people can understand that smaller measures expressed as metres can be roughly equivalent to yards, also if someone cannot visualise 200 m then they are probably not going to make to Borobudur in the first place. However if we do them all then it is odd to leave some out because just because we don't like them. It would be good if there was some flexibility in this, Star article or not. However I am going to revert the (XXXft) from the hotel listings as I also think they are quite unecessary and agree they are quite unattractive. I think the other conversions are appropriate though for article usefullness and will leave them for later review as per this nomination process. I do understand this is not WP and we are not trying to be encyclopedic here but I believe measure conversions in general are in the travellers interest.-- (WT-en) felix 11:52, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Felix, picking and choosing which measurements to convert is worse than showing them all. We must be consistent. Either we don't post conversions (my preference and in line with lots of other star articles), or we convert them all. --(WT-en) burmesedays 12:16, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Actually, I think the intent of the WT:measurements article was that only the more difficult and important conversions be shown—I get that impression, at least, from the examples, which are limited to long distances (km/miles) and temperature (F/C), and the occasional height question. Accordingly, it might be appropriate to provide conversions for mileage/kilometerage in the get in/get around sections (maybe—the map probably already covers this concern), and perhaps for the height of the monument itself. I think it's reasonably fair to assume that anyone who has been to science class can understand 2.5 cm, and in general we don't need to gunk up the article with excessive conversions. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:29, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Noted and done. --(WT-en) burmesedays 00:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

• Support — nice article. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:23, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

• Support. This is a fascinating place! I have a few suggestions, but I do think the article already strikes a nice balance between too much and too little information. Especially if most visiting is done by people wandering around on their own touching and defacing statues, they will need a good pocket guide to help them understand what, exactly, they are defacing. Anyway, suggestions: 1) Perhaps add more or generally rethink the early history section. It struck me as a bit disjointed, and didn't answer questions that would immediately come to mind (who built this and why?), although those answers are perhaps not forthcoming. 2) The map grey regions look a bit off—maybe they could be lightened? Right now they almost look greyed out. 3) A height scale on the cross section map would be awesome. 4) Is the recommendation for #Around Borobudur to use a car? Or is it practical to visit these other sites without one? 5) What are the opening times for the other sites, and how is it possible to climb back up Borobudur for the sunset if the monument closes at 5PM? 6) Try to think of something creative to say for "Drink" :P --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:29, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for all that Peter. The article so needed a fresh set of eyes. Half the problem is that I have been there way too many times, and it has become too easy to make assumptions. On your specific suggestions:

• Early history. I see you have made a few good edits yourself to this section and let me try to clarify a little more. A key problem is that the history of the Sailendra Dynasty and just after is both poorly recorded, and confusing.
• The road map - will do.
• Height scale on the diagram - I will try. The base image itself is traced from an old academic book which I don't have a copy of, and I am a little unsure if it is 100% to scale (although it looks about right).
• Other sites can be visited anytime in the hours of daylight and I will state as much. Climbing back up for sunset is ... errr... "not exactly officially sanctioned".... but I have managed it and and so have others :). I will clarify that it is the entrance that closes at 5PM.
• Drink. Sigh... I will try. Actually, this is a prime example of an article where Eat and Drink should be combined I think? --(WT-en) burmesedays 21:08, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
• On the road map I was using the normal grey background for a district map. Rather than lightening it, I have darkened it a little using c0c0c0 from the regionmap template. Is that more pleasing on the eye? --(WT-en) burmesedays 00:28, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

• I agree with (WT-en) Peter ^Talk, some heights on the elevation diagram would be a good added feature. Also a mention of the relative proportioning ratios maybe something to consider. I went and had a look at the WP article and found they have one there illustrating this. If this was done it may be appropriate to incorporate elevation measures and the proportional relationships (9:6:4) into a single diagram if it did not get too visually busy as an outcome. -- (WT-en) felix 03:47, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

Yep, that's the source picture for the diagram I did Felix. I can work out the heights from the 9:6:4 proportions. Not sure they are interesting in themselves except to a student of ancient architecture, but they can provide rough heights for each level. I will do that.--(WT-en) burmesedays 05:44, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

I suspect you might be correct about the limited interest. The detail is probably similar in some ways to the use of the 'golden mean' (1:1.61803) in many classical buildings, including the Acropolis and describing it may assist some in understanding the proportions of the building. Certainly as you have noted they should assist in calculating the relative heights for the diagram. Actually describing those ratios in the diagram may be of interest if it can easily be incorporated without excessively confusing the diagram but the heights are a far more important aspect than the proportional ratios. BTY you are doing a great job on the article and it is looking really good. -- (WT-en) felix 10:34, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

• Support. The only concern I have relates to the Do section. The first two paragraphs do not describe any kind of activity, but are better placed in a Respect section. For the rest, it's an awesome read. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:20, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

You are quite right and done. I just wanted to get that be nice to the locals message across to counteract the usual whinging traveller stuff that is published elsewhere. But you are certainly right - it should be in Respect.--(WT-en) burmesedays 00:18, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

• Comment. Have now added a height scale to the cross section diagram, and with that, I think all comments made so far have been addressed. Any more comments please?--(WT-en) burmesedays 05:35, 8 September 2011 (EDT

Nice work (WT-en) burmesedays, this is a nice article. -- (WT-en) felix 05:52, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Nice

Out of date information?

I haven't been to Borobudur and have been doing some research - it looks like the point in the article that you can't touch or enter the temple is incorrect. The information online is a little unclear, but it appears you can climb for around $100USD, or just walk around it for $25. Happy to be corrected by anyone with recent experience on this point. —The preceding comment was added by 220.253.127.42 (talk • contribs)

Check the TripAdvisor reviews, which are as recent as the 14th and 18th of this month. They say you cannot access the temple. Ground Zero (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)