From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What is a "Sultan Temple"? I cannot find it in the city of Solo. Where is the location of "Sultan Temple"?

There's no Sultan Temple. You might mixed it up with something else. Probably you're looking for Sultan's Palace? (Indonesian: Keraton). If you're looking for temples (Indonesian: Candi), i.e. Hindu-Buddhist temples, you can try Borobudur, Prambanan, Cetho, or Sukuh. Cheers. Bennylin (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major revamp[edit]

I'm starting a major revamp on this article. Please help after I finished (probably after you saw inactivity). Hopefully someday it can be featured on the main page :) Bennylin (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benny, your work is veery much appreciated. Just to avoid any disappointment, please have a quick look at our MoS. We don't use picture collages etc. Regards, jan (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm open to suggestions and edit :). Bennylin (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thumbnails are generally always left flush right by default, and their placement in the middle or on the left side of the page is controversial and against site custom, if not necessarily written policy. But aside from issues of site style like that, your edits are great! Thanks a lot! Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having read further through, I do have to agree with SatuSuro's remarks that there are some sections with content that isn't specific to Solo, like the general remarks about food. Please concentrate on specific listings of good warung, restaurants, etc., and coverage of local specialties. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading more: Holy Toledo is that "Understand" section overly long! Look at the same section in the guide for Yogyakarta as somewhat of an example of Wikivoyage style. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When is a temple a museum and when is it a place of worship?[edit]

The Hindu and/or Buddhist temples of Java and Sumatra tend to have been seen as ancient relics/museums, but there is no doubt that some of them are active places of worship. How can this be reflected in the listings? Is it appropriate to put them under a Places of Worship heading? At what point does a temple cease to be a sightseeing location and become a place of worship? If there is any active worship at all going on there? Any thoughts welcome, just starting to think this through. Tawonmadu (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a place is an active center of worship does not in any way make it not a sight to see. Consider, among many examples, St. Peter's Basilica, the Western Wall and Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, the ghats in Varanasi. That said, it doesn't make any sense to me to have a separate section for "Temples" that's separated from "Religious buildings". Instead, there could be a "Religious buildings" subsection, divided into tertiary subsections of "Historic temples" and "Modern houses of worship", if that fits (how old the Tien Kok Sie Temple and Masjid Agung Surakarta are so far hasn't been mentioned in their listings). Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, being a place of active worship doesn't stop it being a good place to see. My quandry was about whether they are 'just' ancient relics/museums, and whether we should signal they are actively used for worship in how we classify them. Your suggestion to include these ancient temples as a sub-heading within 'Religious building' sounds like it might work. I'll give it a go and see how it looks. Thanks. Tawonmadu (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that a place is an active house of worship can always be mentioned in the listing's content, but it's not always a neat division. When my parents and I visited the Parthenon in 1977, a single gentleman appeared to be declaiming to Athena. As I recall, the guards confirmed that he was and said that he always did so at the same time every day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too think it's OK to list historic temples, temple ruins etc. under the same heading as actual places of worship. In the description you can say if the site closed to tourists during the times of worship (but otherwise open), if everyone is welcome anytime, or if non-adherents may only see the site from a distance. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Surakarta[edit]

On Talk:Places_with_unusual_names#Respectful_listings.3F one editor questioned the listing of Solo because this is only the nickname of the city. Now, if the nickname of the city cannot be used even on a tongue-in-cheek article like that, then why should the very article for the city should be using the nickname as opposed to the city's real name, Surakarta? Also the Wikipedia article uses the official name. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than nickname, I think it is more accurate to call it an alternative name. 'Solo' is widely used including in formal contexts and, in my experience, is the name most widely heard when talking about the city. I think it is the most likely name that a traveller will hear and see, so is most appropriate here. Wikipedia has a different focus - the totality of knowledge about a place, rather than just the traveller needs. I see that for Jogja, also with two names, there is a redirect from Jogja to Yogyakarta, and then an explanation about the various ways to refer to the city. That seems good. However, it then goes on to refer to Yogyakarta throughout the page which, I think does not reflect the actual experience of the traveller, who will hear Jogja almost exclusively. Tawonmadu (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Solo is not that funny. Tawonmadu (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]