A funny fact : the becak does not exist in Jakarta ! (They were banned as a traffic hazard.)
A few years ago, although becaks were banned, they were still used in the kampung areas of Jakarta. Isn't this still the case?
--Singkong 01:47, 9 Jul 2005 (EDT)
Actually sometime arround 1999 the becaks were banned from Jakarta, not really as as a traffic hazzard, but because a meeting of international scale was set to take place in Jakarta - and becaks would definetely(?) ruin the pictures of a growing country.
To clarify, becaks were banned from metropolitan Jakarta in the late 80s, but they are still allowed to ply the roads anywhere outside the capital. So as soon as you cross over into the Greater Jakarta area (which includes Bogor, Tangerang, Depok and Bekasi) you will find them in abundance. In fact, as the city has expanded, the most accurate way of telling whether you have left the city proper is to check whether there are becaks on the road.
C'mon, you can't just summarize the story of Indonesia's Chinese as "a discriminatory law". Any visitor to Indonesia who keeps his eyes open is going to start wondering eg. why so many businesses seem to be run by Chinese and yet why there are so few signs in Chinese anywhere. If you think there's something incorrect in the text, then suggest a change, don't delete the whole thing. Jpatokal 07:15, 4 August 2006 (EDT)
Okay, I just wanted to make a talk and you have started. Good. Yes, there was a persecution, as well as other thousands of non-Chinese political Indonesian prisoners under Soeharto regime. Do you write about that? Nope. But why Chinese only? You tell me. The fact is that in the present day, things have changed and no discriminatory law for any ethnics, including Chinese. If you want to tell about ethnic clashes, there are a lot of it: christian-moslems in Maluku, Dayak versus Madura in Borneo, Madura versus Betawi in Jakarta, Aceh separatism, Papua separatism, etc. But this is not wikipedia, isn't it? --- Urang bandung 07:22, 4 August 2006 (EDT)
Actually, the History section does say Major General Suharto used this as a pretext to seize power, sidelining Sukarno, proclaiming a New Order (Orde Baru) and initiating a series of bloody anti-Communist purges that led to the death of 500,000-2,000,000 people (estimates vary widely).. But the section about the Chinese is under People, because they're spread throughout the country. All the other ethnic conflicts are localized, and they should be covered under Aceh, Maluku, Borneo, etc, although I just added a note about the whole transmigrasi thing. Jpatokal 07:37, 4 August 2006 (EDT)
Well, since I can't edit this article without being reverted back by the "owner" of this article, let me tell you why I'd like the Indonesian-Chinese paragraph to be summarized into what I'd edited last time.
The story about the 1998 riot is not relevant in the wikitravel article. It is suitable for the more detailed historical article, such as in the wikipedia  and . Do you want to write 1992 Los Angeles riot story in the Los Angeles wikitravel article? No, because it is not the interest of travellers. Yes, you will find it in wikipedia, instead. 
The figure 1500 Chinese killed during the riot has not been confirmed.
The current law does not discriminate any ethnical background, including Indonesian Chinese. So why would tell out to date regulations to the coming travellers? I agree that history is important for the background, but as an overall history, because this is not an article about history. Let's put only current facts in the non-historical section in the wikitravel article.
So what I did is to make sure a traveller who wants to come to Indonesia can get enough information about Indonesia, but not too much with unrelated travel story. I didn't want to hide the story about Indonesia's Chinese and the 1998 riot, because anybody can find it in the appropriate place. --- Urang bandung 12:10, 4 August 2006 (EDT)
I'm not sure how we can come to an agreement on this. I think historical background is very important for travellers, and that the "Understand" sections on Wikitravel are usually much too short. (For example, the Los Angeles/South Central article most definitely should cover the 1992 riots, but it doesn't even exist yet.) Take a look at your favorite printed guidebook: they usually devoted pages and pages to history, culture, etc.
And I'll give my personal angle on this. When I first came to Jakarta, I was very surprised to see that Glodok (Jakarta's Chinatown) had almost no Chinese signage, that a young female ethnic Chinese colleague of mine was kept on a paranoically short leash by her parents (eg. she was never allowed to travel alone), and that all the Chinese people I met had completely Indonesian names and usually couldn't even speak Chinese, much less write it. This is all still true today, and none of it makes any sense without the history. And you know as well as I do that the 1500 figure will never be "confirmed" as long as TNI is around... the Wikipedia article says "over 1000", so I'm happy to change to that instead. Jpatokal 13:19, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
Excuse me to barge in like this, but it's only a matter of POV, isn't it? Sure, you are correct that some Chinese Indonesians are unable to write/read Chinese anymore, but there are also a lot of them who are fluent in them, as there are a lot of them who look down on the natives and teach their offspring to carry their ideas of supremacy of the Chinese race.
The practice of Chinese changing their name is not only happening in Indonesia (check out the Philippines and Thailand), but why is it you guys only put a stress on this matter in Indonesia's article? It's easy to misunderstood the situation in Indonesia when you read this article, when in fact it's more complicated than your shallow experience on one side of the story.
Here you are telling story of a paranoid Chinese Indonesian who are too afraid to travel in her own country. Well you know what? Some of my female best friends whom I personally know (and who are Chinese Indonesians) live alone, far away from their parents, and they travel wherever their heart want them to. And this is not uncommon, as if you really know about Indonesians, it's common for children to leave their homes to seek further study and live alone in as "anak kos". Racism is indeed a delicate matter, and for a foreigner who knows nothing it's better to be wiser on writing your POV Jiwa Matahari 04:35, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
We are not Wikipedia, our goal is to be fair. If over a Chinese were killed in riots under 10 years in the Philippines or Thailand, then it belongs in those articles as well (and I'm sure Wikipedia and Reuters would love to hear about it too). Jpatokal 00:34, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
I don't understand where you're going with saying "we're not Wikipedia". The fact is this is supposed to be a travel guide, not a special site dedicated for ignorant foreigners to put their own POV in. I guess a little bit info about Chinese Indonesian in the "People" section is acceptable, but the way it is right now, it's too biased.Jiwa Matahari 04:29, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
Providing the information is verifiably correct, I'm a firm believer that you can never have too much information in the understand box - I like to read about where I'm going to try and understand why things are the way they are in the place I'm going. Tim 13:29, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
I'll try to chime in here, since there's been a request for more voices. Refering to the concerns stated above:
According to our country template, we should include historical information as part of the "deeper background information." Similar information appears in most country articles.
It would be great if you could compromise on a number (ie the 1000 from wikipedia), otherwise fall back to something less specific like "hundreds"?
Again, this is the "Understand" section, so some amount of historical context is good-- it's just a question of how much
Let's keep trying for consensus! Maj 14:56, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
First, I did not erase the whole paragraph, trying to hide something. Instead, I summarized it into something that is more reasonable for the coming travellers. I think the story about the Jakarta — not Indonesia as a whole — riot with an unconfirmed figure is too much to just to know that there is a Chinese ethnic in Indonesia. If you insist to put it, then the Understand section will not be finished. I can write the whole thing about Indonesian history, its culture, its people and so on, as I know a lot about them. If you want this article to be more like wikipedia, then I'm not going to help that.
Let me see what is the consensus for this. Right now, I'm feeling discouraging to contribute more in Wikitravel. — Urang bandung 17:13, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
You say you're not trying to hide something, yet you replace a discussion of racism which includes the racially motivated murder of many people seven years ago with a new version which vaguely mentions that some sort of unspecificed discrimination occurred in the unspecificied past . If you want to dispute something of this enourmous magnitude, you really need to cite some sort of convincing source of information that supports your view. -- Colin 21:58, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
So you meant that Wikitravel is a place to put article of racism??? — Urang bandung 03:34, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
Oh, and how far the magnitude of a discussion should a new user can raise?? How much percentage of a consensus that a new user can contribute?? — Urang bandung 04:05, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
Did the person, who originally wrote about the riot, cite any sources that 1500 Chinese killed?? I didn't find his view was being supported by any credible convincing source of information. — Urang bandung 04:05, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
Komnas HAM says  that there were "over 1100" people killed. I've changed the article to use this figure. Jpatokal 04:16, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
It is amusing to see that you guys seem so eager to elaborate on things happening in Indonesia that you haven't the slightest idea of, while there are shallow (or lack of) information about discrimination and killing in the articles of South Africa, Australia, United States, and other countries who obviously have discriminative law. I can't help to wonder, is it because Indonesia is a third world country, or is it because most Indonesians are Muslims? If this article will not be improved according to codes of fairness and objectivity, I will erase things that I see as unimportant and unnecessary. Jiwa Matahari 22:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Nobody's singling out Indonesia here. Take a look: South Africa covers apartheid, Australia covers discrimination against aborigines, United States has a lengthy section on racism and its history. If there are factual mistakes in the Indonesia article, please fix them, but erasing things without consensus is generally considered vandalism. Jpatokal 00:34, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
I've already given those countries' wikitravel articles a visit before posting my previous posting here, and what I read on each of the articles are brief explanations of the discrimination, not a lengthy and repetitive like the one in Indonesia's article. Kinda ironic, because Australian Aborigines, South African natives, and Native Americans had gone through a bloody history of discrimination in their own land by the whites, and the discriminatory laws were (and still are) legitimate as they were sponsored by the white government. Is that why you you treat their articles differently? Because the cases in those countries are about you race mistreating the natives in their own land? Nobody seems to care to give the article information about the bloody history of western and Japanese colonization and the slavery, killing, raping, and exploitation the Native Indonesians had to endure. Or the proselytizing missionaries who took advantage of the poor and educated to convert them to Christianity which is still happening until today, in the world's most populous Muslim country? Or how rich and powerful Chinese Indonesians treat their poor and native peers like dirt on their own land? I say, if you writings are what you yourself call as "fair" and "balanced" writings, you must be a very ignorant person indeed. I say, if you could not provide such fair and balanced writing, be a gentleman and do not write your own POV in such delicate issue, moreover, in a travel guide.Jiwa Matahari 04:29, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
Yeah people are terrible to each other. That's always been true. Every group of people is guilty of it. So stop whining about it. And stop talking about things in other countries that you know nothing about, ignorant foreigner (your term). 18.104.22.168
Umm — sorry pak Urang, but again I'll have to revert most of your deletions. Even non-Muslims have to take note of fasting habits, both out of respect for Muslims, and because many restaurants and such close during the daytime fast. A traveller who doesn't know about this stuff may be caught unprepared (I'd hate to spend Ramadhan out in the countryside) and could even cause offense if he goes around chomping on a hamburger in public. Jpatokal 13:32, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
Agree. This is similar to how the US article emphasizes how holidays affect the traveller with closures rather than spending a whole lot of time on what the holidays mean. -- Colin 14:43, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
Well, if you consider 30 days of fasting is a holidays, which is not, then so be it. And I stroke out your talk, as I refuse to be called with pak. — Urang bandung 17:27, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
One of the meanings of "holiday" is "holy day", so it's completely appropriate to call Ramadan a Muslim "holiday" (even if it's 30 days long). - Todd VerBeek 19:15, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
Yes, Ramadan is a holiday. Please familiarize yourself with the English language usage of the word "holiday" before taking offense at its use. Wikipedia has a fine explanation of the matter. In this instance, the meaning is some kind "of special culture-wide (or national) observance or activity". -- Colin 21:48, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
Wow!! I did not have any bad motivation to edit this page. I tried to improve the page, because I know something about Indonesia. Now you accused me of taking an offense?? Because of my bad English word?? Now, I am feeling unwelcomed here. What an amazing community! Now I know why there are few new users contributing to Wikitravel, because old-time English-native-speaking persons are 100% right on writing something. Editing their contributions is a sin for a new user. — Urang bandung 03:45, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
...and what's wrong with pak? That's what they call me too... Jpatokal 22:49, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
...there's nothing wrong to be called 'pak', but may I said that I refuse to be called that way?? Do I need to explain that?? Perhaps, you should ask the person if they would be addressed with pak or ibu or nona or anything. Urang bandung 03:45, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
Why did you eliminate Hindu's holiday: Nyepi?? It's also a public holiday, nationwide, though it is centered in Bali. — Urang bandung 18:03, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
Your comment is indented as if it were addressed to me, but I haven't edited the article in question lately. Please clarify whose comment you are addressing. -- Colin 21:48, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
Ah, it's only just an indentation mistake. Why do you so sensitive with that?? Everybody knows what I meant is a person who deleted it. I'm just an unfamiliarized-English-words person. Urang bandung 03:45, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
Sorry, my mistake — I didn't realize that Nyepi was a public holiday in the entire country. It's back there now. Jpatokal 22:49, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
Pak/Bu Anon, I appreciate your contributions, but your English is horrible and much of the content you have added is completely irrelevant for a travel guide. I'll be going through Indonesia and Jakarta with a very heavy hand soon... Jpatokal 03:17, 31 August 2006 (EDT)
I had received permission from the owner of SumateraTourism.com for uploading the Toba Lake picture. The coat of arms picture was taken from Wikipedia.org website.
We need more that just "permission to upload." We need it licensed by the CC-bySA license. Please make sure the owner of the copyright understands this. This will allow his competitors to re-use the picture, for example. -- Colin 14:20, 31 August 2006 (EDT)
SumateraTourism is the official tourism promotion website of North Sumatera provinces. There is no competitor of the website.
That's not enough. We need their permission to license it under CC by-sa. Jpatokal 19:27, 1 September 2006 (EDT)
I had showed the term and they agree with it. Contact: Minister Jero Wacik, Mr Hutabarat from SumateraTourism and Mrs Suranti from Budpar/My-Indonesia. All Images from official Indonesian Tourism promotion agency websites are allowed to be uploaded into Wikitravel tourism promotion pages.
Then you need to show some proof: the person's name and contact information, for example. Jpatokal 06:59, 3 September 2006 (EDT)
It clearly states at the bottom of the website: "The images in this gallery are copyrighted and belong to their own respective owners, namely photographers. You may download and use the images from this gallery for personal uses. But you may not reproduce, retouch, change,distribute, or reuse them for any other purposes, especially commercial ones."
Your suggestion that these websites are willing to violate their own copylefts seems highly unlikely. Additionally, the websites don't own the images to most if not any of the images as suggested by this line: "The images in this gallery are copyrighted and belong to their own respective owners, namely photographers." The agencies/organizations can not unilaterally relicense works that do not belong to them. You must have permission of the photographers/copyright owner's permission to relicense the images. Even if the images are relicensed we can't use images with a logo or website pasted on it. The logo and website text will have to go from all images before we can use them. If the agencies are truely okay with us using the images that they do own the copyright to and are willing to relicense the images under our license then they make a press release to that effect. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 03:39, 6 September 2006 (EDT)
Ok, I've emailed the ministry and I await the ministry's response. Please do not upload any images until I have received a response. Please remind me tomorrow to provide the copyright status of the images here should I forget. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 03:49, 6 September 2006 (EDT)
especially commercial ones. I had the license for uploading picture to Free, non commercial, website without any commercial advertisement, as long as I put the name of the photographer, Mr Bambang Wijanarko and the name of website. Therefore I have their permit. The Indonesian government website usually have the same top domain: "go.id". They created their website for tourism promotion in Indonesia, therefore Wikitravel can help their MAIN GOAL.
Actually you did not have permission to relicense the images under the license we use, because 1. Wikitravel will eventually have advertisements. 2. The license we use allows anyone else even Travelocity.com, for example, to use the image for commercial purposes. 3. Our license permits anyone to change the license. While it wass kind of you to try an to get permission either you do no under stand the CC-by-SA 1.0 license or you did not properly explain the license. I've been working with several tourism agencies, recently and the biggest problem that I and the agencies have encountered are that these agencies have a very hard time to license image under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license. If I want to I can take the image and sell it if I want to because the license allows me. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 13:52, 6 September 2006 (EDT)
Re-arrgh. WTF? Brands of yogurt, a list of Jakarta's mayors and annotated lists of every single act of violence ever committed on Indonesian soil? Do you realize that this is supposed to be a travel guide? I'm starting to look forward to deleting all this crap. Jpatokal 12:06, 2 September 2006 (EDT)
I deleted some of it, shortening the history section. Pashley 04:55, 24 September 2006 (EDT)
So, I received one email from the ministry and they say that images can be used provided the author is noted and a link to the website is provided, however, I asked if they understood the CC-by-SA 1.0 license and they did not address that. Nor did they say if the images were available under the license. I've sent them another email and I'll hopefully get a clear answer. If the answer is not clear then I suggest discontinuing the use of the ministry's images. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:28, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
Is is really helpful to have the indonesian name of all the individual ingredients with translation in parenthesis? I mean, I can understand it for exotic ingredients, but these are mostly everyday things in English too: ginger, vanilla, brown sugar.. I think all the parentheticals just break it up and make it harder to read. Texugo 00:50, 5 September 2006 (EDT)
Some foreign tourist are allergic to peanut, milk or other ingredients.
I just edited an article (Indonesia), summarizing a paragraph that I believe it is not related at all to the travellers (see the article's talk page). Then somebody reverted it back. He did give an explanation and I gave my last argument. I still think his explanation is not enough to revert my edit. Editing a page and then somebody reverted the page makes me unwelcomed to edit in that article, or even in any articles. My edit was not spam/vandalism, but something to improve the article. Sorry for this talk if it is not appropriate. I'm just a newbie here. Urang bandung 06:49, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
(Note: The revert in question is here ). I don't know enough to have an opinion, but I just want to point out that Jpatokal explained his edits and discussed in the talk page, so this is not exactly a question of bad behaviour; it is just a disagreement that should be discussed and sorted out, as you are doing. — Ravikiran
I'm still waiting for other opinions. — Urang bandung 13:06, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
I don't have a strong feeling about this particular set of edits, but recommend you take a look at Wikitravel:Consensus. You're doing the right thing by raising the issue for discussion. Also check out Wikitravel:The traveller comes first for some thoughts about priorities, what you should hold your ground on, and where to compromise. I don't think User:Jpatokal's edits are contrary to the spirit of either of these, but YMMV. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:55, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
Nice pointer, Bill. This isn't an exceptional case; I'd like to find some compromise text that conveys your ideas, Ub, without going too far afield. The right place to discuss the content of Indonesia is Talk:Indonesia. --Evan 14:24, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
Hi, I just noticed that there is no guide here about the arrival and departure card. I hope it's okay for you guys if I add it; I've seen some people having troubles losing their own departure cards or not having the correct stamp on it. :( --Nettai 05:36, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
Regarding the warning box: When was this warning issued? I have seen nothing in the news to indicate that there is an imminent threat of a terrorist attack in Indonesia, or is this some long standing warning. If so, then I wonder whether it requires such a prominent position. No country is safe. For example, Japan and and the West Coast of the US are prone to earthquakes. Australia has a high number of venomous snakes. However, none of these have specific 'warning boxes.' From personal experience, I would say that the street level violence in Indonesia (at least in Jakarta) is a greater threat to tourists than a terrorist attack. Anyway, I'm not questioning adding the warning, but if it is a long standing caution aimed at encouraging people to be vigilant, then I'm just wondering whether it is helpful to give it such a prominent position or just leads to more paranoia. I don't know. Thoughts? WindHorse 00:54, 6 February 2007 (EST)
I notice that Jpatokal has already solved the question. The box has gone. WindHorse 00:56, 6 February 2007 (EST)
The U.S. State Department apparently updated a very old warning (November 2005) just last month. They don't say anything about advising against "all but essential" travel, but they mention U.S. government employees must have permission before traveling to several areas of the country.
I think Indonesia, after several other countries (most notably Iraq) is home to some of the most active terrorist organizations. Such as the Islamic Defender Front, and probably best known Jemaah Islamiyah, but since there haven't been any(?) attacks since the Bali bombing I think a notation should be made in the "Stay Safe" section, but I don't think a warning box is the right way to go. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 01:12, 6 February 2007 (EST)
If the Warning Box was added in response to an old State Department up-date, then I think that we can definitely delete it. Dangers are part of life. We don't need warnings for every possible minor threat. Warning boxes, in my opinion, should be reserved only for very dangerous situations, like (civil) wars or places recently hit by a natural disaster or epidemic. As Andrew states, less 'acute' cases can be dealt with under the 'Stay safe' section. WindHorse 01:40, 6 February 2007 (EST)
If you actually look at the Stay safe section, you'll see plenty of coverage. I'm particularly proud of the first sentence: Alas, Indonesia has been and continues to be wracked by every pestilence known to man: earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, terrorism, civil strife, corruption and crime make the headlines on a depressingly regular basis.Jpatokal 11:07, 6 February 2007 (EST)
Warning: Surely Indonesia shoul dhave a permanent warning? No-one I know will ever go there, as we are aware of this: http://www.indonesia.li. I am based in the UK and growing numbers, it just isn't worth the risk, quite apart of ethical issues. No offence, but come on.
For the record. Despite global economic conditions and questionable travel warnings, visitors to Indonesia in the first 6 months of 2009 were up 2.6% to 2.97 million. Well on track for 6 million foreign visitors in 2009 as there were in 2008. --Burmesedays 01:26, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
I've reverted the removal of the subregion listings. As in the USA article, the country is just too big for the top divisions to be sensible if you don't tell what's in them. (I wouldn't oppose a nifty color-coded region map though.) Jpatokal 14:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Then go ahead and use the lists in the subregion articles as reference, as soon as you've figured out a way to do it that doesn't look horrible and set a bad example. - Todd VerBeek 16:01, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
I'll reformat using the Regionlist template, and so that the "lists" only includes the other islands (eg. "Java" won't list West/Central/blahblah, just Madura, because otherwise it wouldn't be clear where you can find it). Jpatokal 22:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
I would like to move the Embassies listing to a dedicated page (i.e. Embassies in Indonesia) because it is a very tedious list and clutters up the main page. Does anyone disagree with this? I think some other sections could also be migrated to dedicated pages, the embassy listing is the largest. Beggs 03:58, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
The embassy listings should be shunted out to Jakarta, and any consulates to the relevant cities. But other than that, we don't usually split up country pages, see eg. Japan for an even bigger one... Jpatokal 04:21, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
The list of embassies is too cluttered (and we don't need the information of the consulate/embassy of every country), so I've only kept the embassies of 'major' countries and other ASEAN members in the list. chinzh 09:08, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Flattened out hierarchy for Nusa Tenggara, Maluku, Papua
Since it serves no purpose to have one region (eg. Maluku) divided into only two regions (North/South Maluku), I've merged the following three pairs: West and East Nusa Tenggara into Nusa Tenggara, North and South Maluku into Maluku, and Western New Guinea/West Papua/Papua into Papua. These can then be more naturally subdivided into their constituent islands. Jpatokal 08:02, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Could we combine Borobudur and Prambanan into one "other destination" bullet point? That's effectively what I did on the regions map. It would seem to my inexperienced eye that travelers would not visit one without the other, since they're right next to each other. --PeterTalk 01:40, 2 February 2009 (EST)
makes a lot of sense, particularly given the huge number of possibilities for the list of 9 destinations. A very large percentage of visitors to Borobudur and Prambanan would do so in a combined visit as you say.--Burmesedays 10:48, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
Can we please decide on a consistent way to write the Indonesian currency. I note from here  that Wikitravel does not much like standard international currency codes. So the obvious choice of IDR is out. The Wikitravel currency style guidelines seem to imply that 'rupiah' written in full and always after the amount would be appropriate, eg '375,000 rupiah'. More commonly used in Indonesian articles at the moment is RP 375,000 or Rp 375,000. Whichever, a formal guideline would be appreciated.--Burmesedays 10:19, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
"Rupiah" is a bit on the long side, so "Rp XXX" is the best choice. Jpatokal 01:12, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
Thanks and will use Rp (no dot) XXX in future and hope that others do as well. --Burmesedays 01:20, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
A lot of water has gone under the bridge in the last 5 years or so (and both Burmesedays and Jpatokal have moved on to pastures new), so I now suggest we just use the standard ISO method of INR375,000 as specified at Wikitravel:Currency. This will avoid having to use the tricky HTML construction of a non-breaking space ( ) for the space between "Rp" and the price, to avoid the pair being separated by a line break.
(If you write Rp 375,000 it will always display as "Rp 375,000" making sure that the numeral is never separated from its associated unit by wrapping to the next line like: "Rp 375,000", but that refinement is almost always overlooked by most editors...)
If there are no reasoned objections in the next 7 days, I'll make the necessary changes. --Ttcf (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2014 (EDT)
Indonesia's most popular attraction sort of disappears
It is jarring and really odd that the single biggest attraction for visitors to Indonesia (by a huge margin) is almost invisible here. Bali is not listed in either Cities or Other Destinations nor is it mentioned in the regional text. As there is a message not to change any of the Other Destinations in this article, I would suggest that Anyer (pleasant as it is) is replaced with Bali in Other Destinations and that Bali is at least mentioned in the Nusa Tengarra text in the Region List table.--Burmesedays 10:38, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
I agree that Bali should be on the list but instead of Anyer i would say that Baliem Valley could also be removed because the article is non-existent and much less of touristic interest. jan 11:24, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
Yeah. Baliem could also go, particularly as the article is empty. Jani, great new food pics. Do you have a view on this matter also? --Burmesedays 02:38, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
No one seems to be too bothered about this issue, so I will replace Baliem Valley (a sadly empty article) with Bali. This will give Bali at least some prominence on this page. It does after all account for 80% of all international visitors to Indonesia. --Burmesedays 06:43, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
Change to regional structure of the Indonesian article
The regional structure of this article has been changed to reflect Bali as a top level region and not as part of Nusa Tenggara. There is a discussion about this on the Bali Talk page. --Burmesedays 05:43, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
Is Jl an acceptable abbreviation of Jalan when giving an address? It is used a lot in WT articles but I do not think it should be as it means zip to a visitor who is not acquainted with Indonesia.--Burmesedays 10:49, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
I think it's OK to abbreviate in addresses, but should be expanded in text. ("Jalan Jaksa is where the backpackers hang out. Recommended: Losmen Bule Bodoh, Jl. Jaksa nr. 13, blah blah.") Major region/city articles should (and, for most part, already do) discuss addressing a bit up top and note this. Jpatokal 00:56, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Somehow a 10th city snuck in there. I am removing Surabaya which is a bit of a wasteland as far as travellers are concerned (apart from business travellers). Please discuss here if you think that is wrong. --Burmesedays 06:55, 16 January 2010 (EST)
I have added Lombok and the nearby Gili Islands as they have been publicly proclaimed by the President, the Vice President, the Minister of Tourism and others as Indonesia's 2nd most important tourism destination. As there is a giant lizard and a beach in the list I thought it appropriate to put the 2nd most important destination in there as well. -- felix, 20:06, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
Geographic spread is also a factor. In any case, we don't take much notice of political posturing here. This list is limited to 9 and there should be discussion before any change is made. I am therefore removing Lombok as a listed OD. By all means put forward the case for replacing one of the other 9.
Personally I think Anyer is a poor selection on anything other than geography. Komodo is far more than a lizard though - it is an extremely important national park, and well, an all-round wondrous place.--Burmesedays 11:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
Looking at that list again, I actually think Bali should not be listed as an other destination as it is also a top level region. Also, reading back on this page, that was my fault! That frees up one spot which I propose should be Baliem Valley in Papua. That insanely OtBP spot was in the original list and got dropped in favour of Bali. It would be good to have an OD way out in the east.
I am also far from convinced that Anyer deserves a spot and that Borobudur and Prambanan could be listed as one as proposed way back in 2009.
My proposed list is:
Baliem Valley - superb trekking into the lands of the Lani, Dani and Yali tribes
Borobudur - one of the largest Buddhist temples in the world located in Central Java province; often combined with a visit to the equally impressive Hindu ruins at nearby Prambanan
Those 8 would be give spread of Sumatra - 2, Java - 2, Sulawesi 2, Nusa Tenggara - 1, Papua - 1.
One of the immense national parks in Kalimantan would make a good 9th, but the major parks do not even have WT articles :(. --Burmesedays 11:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
Sorry Burmesedays, we are overlapping edits, I was writing the comments below at the same time as your recent post...
Yes of course there is more to Komodo than lizards, giant or otherwise. I was making that statement in a rather light hearted and flippant manner. It is a while back now that I listed Lombok in the article and left the note above. I observe now that I overlooked signing and date stamping my comment at that time, (now retro fixed). Certainly Anyer is no where near as significant a destination as Lombok, or Lombok/Sumbawa. Indeed it has a broken and somewhat run-down feel to it. I was there just a few days ago and was surprised to see that it has slid back even further in the last few years since I last visited there. The beaches are still quite attractive but the tourism facilities and general feel of the place is presenting as a good example of how not to do it. The long grinding approach past the Krakatoa steel works and industrial area is also a bit of a negative and the access road to the coast has degenerated into a broken pot-holed disaster covered with heavy transport vehicles that appear to ply the road 24/7. I will not delve into commentary on the local regency and its political roots but anyone familiar with the area will understand there are a few issues there. Apparently the road is of little concern and any previous remedial works appear to have been abandoned long ago. The local residents are wearing masks and performing valiant efforts with garden hoses to try and keep the huge dust clouds abated from their living spaces. It is not quite post apocalyptic, more pre-apocalyptic. Once at the beach things lighten up a bit but I saw no significant numbers of tourists of any kind and I would certainly not hold it up as a significant Indonesian destination other than for students of failed public works programs and those wishing to visit dated and run down beach side resorts. As it is the nearest touristic or day tripper beach destination to Jakarta (aside from Ancol) it is all a bit sad. It gets better further along the coast road to the south west but still, it needs to go from the article asap.
In regard to Lombok it and the accompanying Gili Islands are a significant Indonesian domestic and international destination and my personal view is that Lombok should be in the list. My personal take on this is that Lombok (including Gili Islands and Mount Rinjani is a far more significant destination for travellers than either Tana Toraja, Prambanan, Lake Toba, Bunaken, Bromo-Tengger-Semeru National Park, or Komodo, and most certainly more significant than Anyer. My suggestion is that Anyer should be deleted and replaced with Lombok and that Tana Toraja, Prambanan, Lake Toba, Bunaken should be reviewed for suitability. Sulawesi should be represented somehow and most certainly Bromo and Toba are important sights. There is no argument concerning Borobudur/Jogakarta and Bali being significant destinations. Although it has its own set of negatives Jakarta is also a significant destination and many regional SE Asian visitors go there for the shopping. Bandung is a beautiful city and could possibly be considered for the list. So at this point, even if there are no other changes made I most certainly suggest that Anyer is de-listed and replaced with Lombok.-- felix 12:11, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
Absent a suitable Kalimantan NP article, I would be happy to see Lombok there as the 9th other destination in the list I proposed.
Felix, cities and other destinations are covered in separate sections, and the cities you mention are already listed in the relevant section of this article.--Burmesedays 12:19, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
Aggh - overlapped again...
BTY Burmesedays, I think your proposed inclusions all have great merit and you have done an excellent job of providing destinations of geographic/socio-cultural diversity and touristic interest. I only mentioned Jakarta and Bandung in the context of being significant (city) destinations, rather than for (other destination) list inclusion, sorry I should phrase my comments a bit (lot) better.--felix 12:22, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
I note that Burmesedays has just re-listed Lombok and support this. However I feel that any of the suggestions made in his list above may offer more merit than Anyer and would offer more interesting destination diversity. Also poor Anyer is in a bit of a mess despite the sweeping sandy beaches and still appealing seaward aspect toward the setting sun.The Anyer article is also rather un-developed-- felix 12:58, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
What are you up to Burmesedays, in this edit  you have pulled Lombok out again. I am not sure about this idea of an island not being applicable for listing as an Other destination but when I lasted checked Bali is entirely surrounded by water and that island is still in the list. I think it would be unfortunate to exclude Lombok from being listed as an Indonesian destination as it is a significant one to both international and domestic tourism and any of its individual destinations of Mount Rinjani, Gili Islands or the mainland surely are of more interest and significant to the traveller than is somewhere like Anyer beach, which I note is still in the list. I know you are aware of the locality as you are responsible for a very significant amount of the content in the articles for that destination. What is your plan with this list? cheers -- felix 09:17, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
The list is up for discussion here Felix. Lombok was pulled out as it was added without discussion, and its addition made the list up to 10, when the limit is 9.
Personally my view is that the list should be the 8 proposed above on August 22nd, and absent any article for one of the major Kalimantan parks, then Lombok should be the 9th. It is though normal to leave proposals like that open for comment for at least two weeks before making any change.--Burmesedays 10:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
Well it was at least added with a note on the Discussion page at the time. I am assuming the lack of contrary opinion for nearly 12 months may indicate there is no apparent objection to the listing. Of course you are correct about the 2 weeks but I was thinking that the 11 prior months of being listed in the article sort of took care of that. You are also of course entirely correct about the max limit of 9. I hinted in my original notes here last September that Anyer should go and I should have been a lot more clear about that at that time. Instead I only added Lombok and left Anyer as I felt a consensus was required to remove it at that time. Then I must admit, I just forgot about it. For what it is worth I support your current proposal as per the list you proposed above on 22 aug 2011, with the further suggested addition/reinstatement of Lombok. If you want to leave it for 2 weeks to see if there are any other views on this then that does not bother me. So if we are looking for a vote here then you certainly have my support for the proposed changes.-- felix 12:56, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
An aside, I stress again that Bali is there in error and has to go. That's my fault if you read back :). We should not have a top level region also listed as an Other destination. So, if no objections by September 5th, the proposed 9 are:
Baliem Valley - superb trekking into the lands of the Lani, Dani and Yali tribes in remote Papua
Borobudur - one of the largest Buddhist temples in the world located in Central Java province; often combined with a visit to the equally impressive Hindu ruins at nearby Prambanan
Looks like 2 weeks+ has passed and there is no commentary opposing The list by burmesedays. Accordingly it would be appropriate to go ahead and proceed with his recommendations unless anyone has an alternative proposal. Certainly he has my support as indicated above. -- felix 10:45, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
It's been years, and the article still managed to get me sleepy. There is literally too much useless information in the article, why can't it be fun and relevantly informative for travelers like Wikitravel's Thailand or even (good gracious) Laos? Please limit the information on the things that's essentials for travelers only, for other stuff they can visit Wikipedia. God, even Wikipedia's Indonesia is more fun than this page.Jiwa Matahari 03:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Please do plunge forward and make it more interesting.--Burmesedays 06:19, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Jiwa Matahari, if you have a good look at some of the more prominent Thai articles such as Bangkok you will notice that one editor Globe-trotter is responsible for a great deal of the content and the 'lively' writing in those articles. By all means emulate his efforts. -- felix 12:28, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
Hopefully, the expanded and livened-up See and Do sections will have gone someway to re-dressing that.--burmesedays 11:42, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
Yes, some good improvements and a lot tidier now. I note that Jiwa Matahari does not appear to have returned despite their earlier protests about the articles quality. Apparently they did not feel inclined to do anything about it despite our encouragement. -- felix 12:45, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
I just toned down the statement that Indonesia was the "premier" surfing destination as there may be some other global contenders. I would like to hear some opinions on the inclusion of Banko Banko (Desert Point) in SW Lombok in the Surfing section of the article. It is a significant surfing cult destination and has some significant activity on its break. , -- felix 12:48, 22 August 2011 (EDT)