This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Standard references on this in the english speaking world have giyanti. Also EB is not a good example - ricklefs is SatuSuro 08:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article shoulde be merged with the other - as (a) most reliable sources use the giyanti spelling (b) the place name in indonesian sources uses giyanti SatuSuro 08:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong direction - from Indonesian usage (Perjanjian Giyanti [1]- is the Indonesian wikipedia article title) and general sources used by english speaking non EB reliant readers SatuSuro 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A simple rough google check shows a relation of 2x the number of hits for the use of giyanti against gianti - SatuSuro 15:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google checks are one thing. Sources are another. Please provide direct sources (and direct quotes if possible) with the spelling "Giyanti" so that we can expand and enhance the quality of this article's content. Besides, all spellings were taken into account in the merged article. Even though I had no intention of disregarding your initial position, you nevertheless need to provide sources so that your overall argument can be presented as a definitive case. Google checks may be used to test the popularity of terms, but they do not serve as reliable sources since you cannot cite a Google check in order to validate a spelling change. This article needs more than just a "spelling correction." Do you understand? Deucalionite 15:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you do the Google books search I suggested there are plenty of sources to choose from - all the modern books about Indonesia use the "Gyanti" term. In fact SatuSuro already had one in his article - Ricklefs. You really shouldn't be writing articles using Briticanna as a source. Please stick to using reliable secondary sources. (Caniago 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Fine. "Giyanti" it remains. Deucalionite 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you moved it to Treaty of Giyanti (1755)? There isn't any need for the year on the end of the article name unless there are two different Treaty of Giyanti. Please advise. (Caniago 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I already know that a year is usually placed whenever there are two different treaties possessing the same name. However, this is a special case. There are sources that state that the Treaty of Giyanti (ending the Third Javanese War of Succession) was signed in 1751 instead of 1755. In order to mitigate any potential confusion among users and readers, it is important to emphasize the year of the treaty's signing in the title. Even if academic consensus overwhelmingly agrees that the treaty was signed in 1755, users may inadvertently find and use sources that may have the treaty's signing at 1751. The move is a precautionary measure. You may not agree, but dates are important if any treaty article is to be taken seriously. Granted, dates are not the only things valuable in a treaty article. However, conflicting dates (even minor ones) lead to confusion. I know this because I have been writing and editing treaty articles for two years (I know, "big deal"). Please allow the move. Deucalionite 17:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am aware that Encyclopedia Britannica Online is not an entirely helpful source. However, the reason I used it was because I did not know in 2006 when I first wrote this article that the name of the treaty was usually spelled with a "y." I only found limited sources that presented the term "Gianti" in the treaty's name. I am glad that there are more sources that can help me provide a better treatment of this article. In time, I will replace the Encyclopedia Britannica source with something a lot more reliable. If you want to go ahead of me and add more reliable sources, then by all means do so. Deucalionite 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
