Talk:Jakarta

Possible supplementary source for Education section

I have a conflict of interest related to InternationalSchools.net, so I am not editing the article directly.

In the Education section, the article currently says that Jakarta has public and private schools, including bilingual and international institutions, and gives examples such as Jakarta Intercultural School and Australian Independent School.

Would editors consider whether this city-level directory may be useful as a supplementary source or external reference for that specific education context?

https://internationalschools.net/cities/jakarta

The page lists international schools in Jakarta and groups school profiles by city. I understand that directory-style sources may not meet Wikipedia's sourcing expectations for article claims, especially where official government sources are already available. I am therefore only suggesting it for editor review rather than adding it myself. ~2026-32140-26 (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think the directory should be added as a source or external link. The existing statement about international schools is already supported by a Jakarta government source. Your proposed website appears mostly intended for comparing schools and contacting them. It doesn't add independent analysis or information unavailable from stronger sources. It might be useful as research aid, but article claims should most definitely rely on official records or independent reliable sources. AdaCiccone (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Recent additions of unsupported, promotional, and un-encyclopedic content

@Zul Alfarisi: You didn't answer my message on your talk page, so I decided to start the discussion here myself.

Per my edit summaries (here and here), I've already laid out my arguments for your edits' reversal (edit #1 and edit 2). Now it's your turn to explain here why your unsupported, promotional, and un-encyclopedic contents should stay or improve the article. Please establish consensus for inclusion first before restoring them, per WP:ONUS. Thank you. AdaCiccone (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Infobox trimming

I think infobox is quite long, which causes layout issues for the history section. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that an infobox should summarise, not supplant, key facts from the article, and that less information makes it more effective for identifying facts at a glance. It also advises against information that requires further explanation or qualification. MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE state that images should be selected carefully, have illustrative purposes, and not overwhelm the page (WP:INFOBOXTOOLARGE).

Here's what I removed:

• The two museums: These are individual institutions rather than representations of Jakarta. The city's architectural or cultural subjects are already represented by the Jakarta Old Town, Merdeka Palace, and Monas. Images should each have a distinct illustrative purpose. Quantity alone does not make the montage more representative.
• The "Central Jakarta (de facto)" capital: MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that the infobox isn't suitable for nuance and that information which cannot be stated simply without qualification doesn't belong there.
• The establishment rows: I retained the years 1527, 1619, and the province-status designation year. The archaeological and inscription dates are about habitation or activity in the area, they're clearly not establishment dates for Jakarta as a settlement. That needs historical explanation and the History section already covers that. The 1621 city-status date is a narrow administrative detail that adds little beside the 1619 establishment of Batavia.
• The GDP block: I simplified to only include nominal special-region GDP and nominal GDP per capita in rupiah and US dollars. The previous one had (1) provincial GDP in rupiah, US dollars, and international dollars, (2) per-capita GDP in all three and then (3) metropolitan GDP in all three. That's nine figures. Not to mention it's untidy when the header says "Nominal" while each row includes a PPP figure. The BPS source also only lists tables for provincial GDP and provincial GDP per capita, the metro GPD figures seem like an aggregation of several local GDP figures, which itself is unsourced.
• The Woodmark logo:
  • The regulation (PERGUB Prov. DKI Jakarta No. 58 of 2020) can verify that the wordmark is an official Jakarta branding device. But it certainly cannot dictate editorial selection here. Merely being sourced doesn't mean automatic inclusion, and it's a poor source for the justification of inclusion.
  • Jakarta's coat of arms already identifies the governmental subject. The wordmark performs the same visual-identification function, but as a branding mark rather than the formal emblem; ultimately, the woodmark is redundant visual identification.
  • As before, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that less information makes an infobox more effective, and MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE states infoboxes should facilitate access to information rather than prioritising appearance. Infobox graphics should identify the subject or provide high-level context; the coat of arms already does that. A second government identifier therefore needs a separate reason for inclusion.
  • Nowhere in the body article is the wordmark, its adoption, use, or significance explained, laid out or treated as a narrative paragraph. An infobox's purpose is to summarise key facts in the article, not elevate something that has no substantial coverage in the body.
  • This is also a WP:UNDUE issue. A wordmark placed alongside the coat of arms at the top of a major city article tells readers that both are comparably important representations of Jakarta; this is something we as editors should be careful about. That kind of prominence needs more support than simply a PERGUB establishing that the logo exists. The regulation clearly doesn't demonstrate a set of independent literature treating it as a defining civic symbol, an important part of Jakarta's visual identity, or a significant subject in its own right.
  • The argument 'other city articles also have similar logo' shouldn't be the sole deciding factor in retaining it. Each article must stand ultimately on its own merits. Per MOS:INFOBOXUSE, the fields used in the infobox here are decided via consensus at this article. Just because a similar second logo exists elsewhere doesn't mean it belongs here too; see also WP:OTHERCONTENT.
  • The hidden comment "please dont remove it" carries no community consensus whatsover.

AdaCiccone (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead section and infobox

@Whatsup236 Let's not overload the lead with too many points about population. Population is no doubt key to Jakarta's significance, but you have to consider other aspects as well, like legal status, location, metropolitan extent, national and international functions, etc.

Before your changes, it already says that Jakarta is:

• Indonesia's largest city
• Part of one of the world's largest urban agglomerations by area
• Part of the world's most populous urban area
• Within a metropolitan area of more than 40 million people

By adding the ranking among Indonesian provinces, you created yet another population comparison. That's four separate size or population distinctions in one opening paragraph. That's quite a lot.

Relative emphasis in the lead should follow the importance given to aspects of the subject in reliable sources and in the article body, per MOS:LEADREL. My opinion is that I don't think provincial ranking has the same prominence as the city's capital status, metropolitan scale or political and economic role.

Feel free to discuss. AdaCiccone (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually only ranked to maintain by status city instead, but since Jakarta is already equivalent to a province, there's no harm in including the provincial ranking as well. If you were to maintain the city ranking, let me know. I'd maintain the city ranking only. Whatsup236 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Infobox selection isn't based on whether another fact is harmless. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE asks whether it's a key fact and says the less information an infobox contains, the more effective it is for readers to find important info at a glance.

I also think there's no need "maintain the city ranking" numerically. The phrase "largest city" already conveys that Jakarta ranks first among Indonesian cities. Adding "1st city in Indonesia" below the population figure expresses the very same fact. Ultimately, it's redundant.

Also, please consider the effect that more information on the infobox has on the history section. It's causing layout issues below. A long infobox like this intrudes into another section and interferes with the placement of images, read WP:INFOBOXTOOLARGE for more. AdaCiccone (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

While you might think city rankings are trivial, they're crucial for readers. Therefore, status rankings should also be displayed for ease of use. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE does state that the more concise the better, but this narrative is a recommendation, not an obligation. Whatsup236 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure in what sense these rankings are "crucial". The article already identifies Jakarta as Indonesia's largest city. Displaying "1st in city" redundantly repeats the same information, only in a different form (numerical). The rank among provinces is a different comparison based on the city's province-equivalent status, but it's ordinary demographic context rather than the information needed to identify the subject. It's a separate and less relevant comparison. Useful demographic context yes, but calling it crucial sounds like overstating its importance. AdaCiccone (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Because readers will definitely look at the infobox first and then the contents of the article. Whatsup236 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, which is precisely why infobox should be selective. The question isn't whether readers use the infobox, it's what unique information such rankings provide. "Largest city" already tells readers that Jakarta ranks first. The provincial ranking is a separate cross-category comparison based on province-equivalent status. It hasn't been explained why that is essential to identifying or understanding Jakarta rather than ordinary demographic detail. AdaCiccone (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

And just to add, the population_rank parameter is actually optional. Just because that parameter is available doesn't mean we editors have the obligation to use it to to include every possible administrative ranking. Again, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes should exclude unnecessary content and that less information allows readers to identify key facts more effectively. AdaCiccone (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Back to the initial question, is this mandatory of this link? Whatsup236 (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The ranking isn't mandatory, and neither is its removal. The point is that "population_rank" is an optional parameter. Its use has to be justified via talk consensus per MOS:INFOBOXUSE. The relevant question is whether such rankings adds sufficiently important and non-duplicative summary information to justify inclusion under MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. AdaCiccone (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, look at other cities in the world, they also add rangkings to the infobox. So I wanted to ask whether the link from MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is mandatory or not. Whatsup236 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If you insist on setting out what you want, sorry you have failed to WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS which should be agreed upon by many other editors not just us. Whatsup236 (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that my preferred version has consensus. Neither am I claiming that I can determine the outcome unilaterally. I made a proposed trim, I explained the article-specific reasons for it, I responded to the objections raised, and I offered a compromise in a way that your proposed rankings could be considered for inclusion in the body.

So far that's consistent with WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. It asks editors to discuss disputed changes using sources, common sense, and relevant policies/guidelines, and to consider alternative solutions. Also, consensus is determined primarily by the quality of the arguments, not by how many editors are involved.

The two of us have reached an impasse here so I suggest obtaining uninvolved input through WP:3O or a neutrally worded WP:RFC. That's it for me today, I won't continue this discussion. And I won't continue reverting the disputed contents. AdaCiccone (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41510-06: You earlier argued that it was important for the rankings to be included in the infobox, citing MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS. That MOS is about specialised information that may reasonably appear in infobox—like language codes or technical chemical data—even though it is difficult to integrate into prose. My question to you would be, what is it about a population ranking that makes it specialised? My opinion, it's a simple, ordinary demographic information. Nothing "specialised" about it.

As I said just above, I'm more concerned about the infobox being too large and intruding into the other parts of the article. If you insist that such rankings are crucial information, maybe I'll try integrate it in the body. AdaCiccone (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Recent back-and-forth in parks and public spaces

@Baqotun0023: Regarding your recent additions of Tebet Eco Park and Bendera Pusaka Park:

• The Tempo source earlier Bendera Pusaka Park isn't mentioned at all by it and Tebet Eco Park is only mentioned about the operating hours.
• You then added another source, Masarishop.com. Both parks are mentioned here but it's a high-end designer-fashion retailer website. Its expertise isn't on urban planning, public parks, geography, or Jakarta's civic spaces. Read WP:RS, editors should prefer sources focused on the topic at hand. A fashion retailer's lifestyle page is clearly weak support for selecting notable Jakarta parks.
• Bendera Pusaka Park only opened very recently in March this year, a clear WP:RECENTISM issue especially where it's given disproportionate weight without evidence that it's acquired lasting significance.
• Your claim of both being "more popular" parks isn't supported by the (weak) source.
• I retained Suropati and Menteng parks but this time using a peer-reviewed study in an academic journal, a much stronger and higher quality source and ultimately an on-topic and more relevant one.

If you disagree, please discuss here instead of reverting. Read WP:ONUS too, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on you who is seeking to include disputed content. AdaCiccone (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's answer for this

• I have replaced the source that included both images.
• Previously, that source was comparable in power to the latest one I created, but it has since renovated total the parks in Jakarta.
• Based on my observations after visiting the second park I redesigned in Jakarta, it attracts more visitors than the previous one.
• Last, thank you for updating the source to a more reliable one; however, I will add Ismail Marzuki Park because it is listed in that source.

Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Your own personal observations that a park attracts more visitors shouldn't determine article content. It should be determined by reliable sources.

By the way, you mentioned that you "redesigned" one of the parks being discussed. Could you clarify what you mean by that? Were you professionally involved in its redesign, like as an employee, consultant, contractor, architect or planner? AdaCiccone (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Not at all. I mean, since the property has been renovated, the expansion of the gardens, facilities, and buildings represents a significant improvement over how they were before. Baqotun0023 (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Baqotun0023: Regarding your very recent addition, the issue isn't whether each individual park can be sourced. Sure that all five can be sourced to varying degrees. But consider also WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This is a city-level overview. Adding every park for which a source can be found turns the sentence into a list rather than a summary. That also creates a bad precedent, anyone in the future can just add anything simply because it's sourced. Read WP:VNOT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. AdaCiccone (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, Taman Ismail Marzuki is mostly an arts and cultural complex, with theatres, galleries, the planetarium, library, other cultural facilities etc. The paper supporting it does legitimately analyse its open space as a park, but I argue for this article it's more naturally relevant to the Culture/Arts material, which I just moved. AdaCiccone (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

How would it be best placed, should it be in the article? I think parks operated by Jakarta government and exist from reliable sources may meet the criteria for inclusion in this article. Baqotun0023 (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the best place would be an article specifically focused on Jakarta's parks and public spaces. I don't think there's one so you have to create it yourself. That way, any individual parks can be freely mentioned there, or at least arguably less restrictive than in parent article, because that's the primary topic. And I disagree that being operated by the Jakarta government and appearing in reliable sources is sufficient by itself for inclusion. By that logic, every government hospital, school, library, museum, market, sports facility, other municipal property etc could be added to the article simply because they're government-operated and sourced.

Please understand that this is a summary article. The job therefore is to summarise, not dump literally everything just because we can or because it's sourced. As I said before, by letting anyone adding anything simply because it's sourced ultimately harms the article in the long run. In no time, the article would be reduced to a collection of lists rather than a proper, encyclopedic summary of a major city, because a poor precedent has been made. Since this is a summary article, the relevant question therefore is what makes a particular park sufficiently representative or significant to be named here rather than simply whether it can be sourced. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE requires editors to be selective about the level of detail retained in a parent article.

We editors should act with editorial restraint and discipline. "Can this be sourced?" is often only the first question, but "should this be here, at this level of detail, in this section?", "How would this addition affect the surrounding sentences and the entire paragraph?", "Does this affect the delicate balance of weight among several claims"? are the other things that must be considered as well. AdaCiccone (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Recent Tourism edit

@Baqotun0023: Seems that you misunderstood what WP:DIRECTORY is/means, which is when we list way more examples than we need to when illustrating something or a specific topic.

• The previous paragraph lists only three examples, Monas, the Old Town, and Sunda Kelapa but the lattermost wasn't being treated as an attraction language-wise. I modified it as such and I considered this a good compromise in light of your edit that puts more spotlight on Sunda Kelapa.
• Your paragraph lists only two examples, the other two remains but removing Monas.

These are not a case of WP:DIRECTORY. If someone lists five or more attractions within a small tourism section that is meant to be representative, now that is a clear example of WP:DIRECTORY. Not only that, it'd be against WP:SUMMARYSTYLE too. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)