Talk:Yogyakarta Kraton Guards

Requested move 16 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested. Dekimasuよ! 06:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

---

His Majesty's Kraton Guard Regiment → Yogyakarta Kraton Guards – better translation of the Indonesian and Javanese originals AnakPejuangIndonesia (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

strong support - who his majesty might be in a title like that is potentially misleading JarrahTree 13:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 15 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There's no strong evidence presented either way in this nomination, and as Andrew says, it's frustrating if there are English sources and nobody is using them to determine the true name. That being said though, the weight of numbers is there to move and it is also undoing a previous undiscussed move, which seems fair enough. Given the lack of further discussion in the week since Andrew's last comment, I am thinking a further relist won't achieve much. But there is no prejudice in someone coming forth with fresh evidence from English RS which may give us a better insight.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Royal troops of Yogyakarta → Yogyakarta Kraton Guards – Previous move was done without any discussion; we should revert to the article's previous name because it was patently a more accurate translation of both the Indonesian and Javanese names of the regiment AnakPejuangIndonesia (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC) AnakPejuangIndonesia (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: Rationale ignores the relevant policy completely. We do not make our own translations except as a last resort. The RM above had little participation and is similarly flawed. The article has only four references, three of them are in Indonesian (one of which is a blog) and the sole English source mentions none of the three titles considered to date. The first thing to do is to find English sources (and preferably not blogs) that mention this topic, and see what name they use (and add them to the article!). Andrewa (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The previous RM was not well supported, but it accurately noted that inclusion of "His Majesty" was unlikely to be adequate (though, cf. Her Majesty's Coastguard, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, His Majesty's Military Staff, etc.), and went unopposed. The subsequent move from June should have been preceded by a move request despite the low participation in the previous discussion. Dekimasuよ! 17:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Andrewa There's no generally accepted term in English sources - but variations of palace guards, kraton guards, royal guards etc are used in some newspaper articles & books: eg., http://www.thejakartapost.com/travel/2017/09/14/cirebon-to-host-week-long-festival-of-palaces-this-month.html, https://books.google.co.id/books?id=1TBpBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=%22kraton+guards%22&source=bl&ots=HWGQ3csphm&sig=DZHDJMaXu8g3CkX0Muz9MuYnpQc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr_sXj0bbcAhUBfSsKHbUSCjkQ6AEIXDAJ#v=onepage&q=%22kraton%20guards%22&f=false AnakPejuangIndonesia (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• OK... so you're saying that there are several different names for this regiment in English sources, but that none of these has greater usage than the others, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yup. But it doesn't mean that all of the translations are correct. Some of the English sources have bad English. And, to be honest, perhaps there just isn't enough interest from internationals writers. That said , if one were to come up with a standardised English name for the regiment, I think that 'Yogyakarta Kraton Guards' would be the most accurate translation of the Indonesian/Javanese original. It's frustrating that a lot of Indonesian editors don't engage with the wikipedia community: we're either inactive or frequently make edits without citing credible sources AnakPejuangIndonesia (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• It is also frustrating that you persist in pushing your opinions here. Some of the English sources have bad English. We make no judgement on that, and the fact that you want us to underlies the whole problem with this RM. I think that 'Yogyakarta Kraton Guards' would be the most accurate translation of the Indonesian/Javanese original. Yes, we know. You said so before. As I said, it's frustrating. Andrewa (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Support. Correct translation. The current title sounds like this is an army of (the province or the city of) Yogyakarta. For Andrewa who relisting this discussion, please don't say the word "frustrating", I think you supposed to be neutral here. Hddty. (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It is up to the closer whether they consider or discard| this !vote, or for that matter the nomination itself. See #The relevance of translation below. Andrewa (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The issues as I see them:

1. AnakPejuangIndonesia, the nominator and main (but not only) other participant, has a personal view on the accuracy of the translation of one of the common English names. This RM is largely based on this original research, rather than on the article title policy.

2. The article has had several names, and previous moves had little if any discussion.

I can't see a basis for another move in either of these issues, nor in the claim that other names are equally common. What we need is evidence that one of these names is more recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent than the others. Andrewa (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• The onus should have been on the editor who unilaterally moved "Yogyakarta Kraton Guards" to "Royal Troops of Yogyakarta" without consulting the wikipedia community. Alqhaderi Aliffianiko JarrahTree The previous name change (Ygk kraton guards) went through a discussion process, which although not exhaustive, received the attention of a couple of regular Indonesian contributors. Anyone who understands Indonesian will realise that the Indonesian version of this article is better translated as "Yogyakarta Kraton Guards" than "Royal Troops of Yogyakarta". It's as simple as the difference between "Buckingham Palace Guards" and "UK Royal Troops". This regiment, while originating in the historic army of 19th century sultans, is now only just palace guards, as reflected in their Indonesian name AnakPejuangIndonesia (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• There is some merit in the first sentence, but I think it's pointless even trying to discuss it while the rest of the argument is so patently contrary to both the letter and intent of policy. Their Indonesian name does not matter, let alone your attempts at translation.
• Please, I didn't close this as baseless, although that would have been justified. I relisted it, in view of the previous moves, to allow you or anyone else to come up with relevant arguments as to what the name should be, in the hope of coming to a consensus decision based on policy and evidence and avoiding the need for further article moves, which break incoming external links. Please read WP:AT and/or the instructions at WP:RM. Andrewa (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The relevance of translation

The main arguments advanced for the move so far, by both the nominator and the one support wp:!vote, rely on non-English sources and, equally important, on attempts to translate these sources.

In view of the fact that English sources do exist (this seems agreed above) such arguments have no relevance whatsoever in terms of English Wikipedia article title policy. It is of course up to the closer, which will not be me, as to whether or not these arguments are discarded. But it would be a great help to them, and a benefit to wikipedia, if relevant evidence and arguments were to be presented, and I relisted this to give that opportunity, rather than either closing the RM or casting a !vote myself.

But I seem to have failed completely to make that point above, and the opportunity seems likely to be wasted. That is what I find frustrating. Andrewa (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rationale behind translation

Andrewa I should like to explain to you the rationale behind my translation 'Yogyakarta Kraton Guards':

• It is not possible to choose an English name based on the available English language sources. I quote my earlier comment: "There's no generally accepted term in English sources - but variations of palace guards, kraton guards, royal guards etc are used in some newspaper articles & books".
• References in English to the guards tend to be tangential to other topics, i.e. "the sultan's guards", "palace guards", etc. When names are used to refer to the regiment, they tend to be used in a descriptive manner, not as proper names.
• In the absence of a generally agreed term in English, I think it is incumbent upon us to choose a suitable name based on both the few available English sources and the more numerous Indonesian sources. As a last resort, we have come up with a translation of the official name of the regiment; this, mind you, is also used by some of the English sources, though not to the exclusion of other terms.
• Various earlier names proposed for this article (i.e., "His Majesty's Kraton Guard Regiment" and the "Royal troops of Yogyakarta") are patently misleading translations of the original Indonesian name. (I realise you dismiss this as irrelevant, but I beg to differ given the paucity of high quality English sources on the topic.) I have not come across any English source that uses the first name. English sources that use the second name do not treat that name as a proper name, but rather as a descriptive term to describe the regiment.
• I appreciate your rigorous approach to editing Wikipedia articles, but you should realise that for some worthy, non-Western topics, we simply do not have enough available high quality sources in English. Nor do we have enough engaged editors who are familiar with these topics. It would be a sad loss to English Wikipedia if we simply exclude these non-Western topics.

AnakPejuangIndonesia (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm certainly not disputing the close, it's by one of the most respected arbitrators on these matters, and as I said and they point out the argument concerning the former undiscussed move has merit... I might even have !voted to move had that been the entire case.

But I remain of the view that there are sufficient English sources that the Indonesian sources are irrelevant, and hope that this will not be seen as a precedent for moving articles based on the translation of other language names. I note that we still disagree on the relevance of the Indonesian sources.

I'm more sensitive about this than I would have been had it not been for the recent discussion at Talk:Portuguese India Armadas#Requested move 6 July 2018, where some similar arguments were put in a far messier move request.

Or see Talk:Amsterdam Arena#Requested move 1 August 2018 which is ongoing, with similar arguments among others... a real mess, produced largely by editors who just haven't done their homework, and who persist in citing irrelevant sources... most recently to an amateur newsblog, but there are some appeals to dutch sources in there as well. It's difficult to know how to treat these, we encourage people to be bold but... well, see the rest of that line of my creed. And when there are so many bad arguments, the good ones risk getting lost in the noise. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)