Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Malaysia-related articles

The manual

I just created this article. Its still premature, and perhaps a bit POV, and maybe inaccurate. Please edit as appropriate, and discuss here. Thanks. kawaputra^torque 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great start. Appreciate the work. - Bob K 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing a technical report for a government agency and was confused over whether to refer to proper nouns (e.g. names of rivers and river basins as well as names of government agencies) in Bahasa Melayu or English. In desperation, I had to look up in the Chicago Manual of Style, but they're advising from the perspective of a single-language readership (i.e. American English), as opposed to a multi-lingual readership in Malaysia. What you've started for a Malaysian manual of style is a great help! Ember KL (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defaulsort

Regarding this parameter, im not sure whether we should use it for non-exclusively Malaysian categories, eg: Category:Living people. There wouldnt be a problem it seems for exclusively Malaysian categories. kawaputra^torque 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this can be a bit tricky. With Icelandic people we usually sort by first name in Icelandic categories and by patronymic in generic categories like "Living people". I'd personally prefer to sort by first name everywhere but I think this is a reasonable compromise. However, I think it (almost) never makes sense to sort by second given name so I'm happy to use DEFAULTSORT on the first name in cases like Hafdís Huld and now Samy Vellu. Haukur 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, thats true. We'll probably follow the Icelandic style of sorting. Btw, thanks for the help in getting the page started Haukur. :) kawaputra^torque 03:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, good luck with the sorting! :) Haukur 08:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Convention for institutions with no established English translations

I have been doing full edits of the articles of our universities and other higher education related articles and have been using the commonly used Malay names for the public universities. Generally I based my naming convention on how the Ministry of Higher Education lists them in their English language website, except for those which do have common and established English translation of their names like University of Malaya for Universiti Malaya. One reason I did so was due to the haphazard way in which some of the translated names were rendered, eg. Universiti Putra Malaysia was mistranslated as University of Putra rather than Putra University. I understand this might be problematic in view of WP:NC(UE) but there are exceptions provided for (re: WP:NC(UE) - No established usage). I'd like to solicit some feedback and views on this and whether or not we can come out with a consistent policy about this on this Style Manual. Personally I'd still be partial to using an English translation but there should be some consensus achieved on how the names of institutions with no established English versions of their name are translated first before the articles are published. There are way too many articles related to Malaysia that are written in "English" with local language syntax and grammatical rules, eg. I'm pretty certain I saw the word prestasi mistranslated in one article as prestation quite a while back. - Bob K 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malay names

Additional suggestions for Malay names:

exclude bin & binti from article title, but include it in the article's first line: Anwar Ibrahim, not Anwar bin Ibrahim
avoid stacking titles in first line: Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad not Tun Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad; it seems common sense here, but editors tend to obsess over titles for lesser-known people.

additionally, avoid styles in first line, like all other Wikipedia articles: Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim, not Yang Berhormat Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim.

add all the styles and titles you want in the infobox

That's it for now. -Yk (talk | contrib) 06:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Just need clarification on the stacking of titles; do you mean we should just include the highest title conferred on a person and exclude all lesser titles in the 1st line? ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 08:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the highest title as is practiced by the media. - Yk (talk | contrib) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I agree with it. Bejinhan talks 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 06:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

Hey guys, I expanded the naming convention for Malaysian people section. A couple of issues:

Should articles on Indian people be titled {given name} {father's name} instead of {father's name initial}(period) {given name}, i.e. Subramaniam Sathasivam instead of S. Subramaniam? I checked to see some articles on people from India and the second option seems pretty common: former president A. P. J. Abdul Kalam; Tamil Nadu politicians M. K. Stalin and M. Karunanidhi. (The initials stand for their father's name, which they place in full in front of their given name for official purposes it seems.)
I need someone to factcheck the Dayak naming convention. I know they have patronymics but I'm not sure if they really have a surname.
My rationale for not including the patronymic in Dayak names is it doesn't serve any purpose when it comes to giving unique names to articles (Russian names are similar), and it doesn't seem to be commonly used in the media anyway.

I tried to the give the article a mix of being both explanatory and instructive. I think it's good if people understand why we adopt certain conventions. Do you think the article may be beating around the bush too much?

+ Just in case you were wondering why names of people in alternate scripts should be allowed: well, for Chinese and Indians, the English version of the name actually derives from the names in the original scripts. And it's pretty useful information... People seem to be interested in these things; see Elaine Chao, Steven Chu - they do it for Chinese Americans too. - Yk³ talk · contrib 07:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People from each ethnic group should definitely have their name in their language. I'd personally prefer a fully spelled out option for indian names, but I think that if other guidelines currently specify the other method then we should follow those guidelines. As for Dayaks, the ones I've met have had surnames but only introduced themselves by a single name. I suppose we should follow the sources available for each person until a firmer consensus can be established. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer should always lie in what reliable sources most commonly use for the particular name in question. So we should have "Samy Vellu" and "S. Subramaniam" and "N. Gobalakrishnan". Of course, for some names, like Sivarasa Rasiah, the sources go both names, so it's not easy. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chip and Mkat, that we should just follow what most reliable sources use. Specifying a strict guideline on Indian and Dayak names might not be a very good idea, since there does not appear to be a uniform naming convention on Indian names, as highlighted by Mkat, and that some Dayaks have patronymics while some have surnames. The reason for highlighting Malaysian patronymics here is to provide an exception to the rule that a person must be referred to by their surname only in any article. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 01:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to comment on Kadazan names. It is actually quite complicated. Eg. there is Mr John Payu Gimbingan. First name: John, Middle name: Payu, Father's given name Gimbingan (hence it is a patronymic). John's son is Albert Payu. Payu may or may not be a surname because it is actually Albert's father's middle name but Albert's son is also called Richard Payu. This is quite common in a family I know in Sabah. But this is not the universal trend. Also in Sabah, although some Kadazans have patronymics, the connector "anak" is very rarely used, although i have seen Dusuns using "anak". ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented out the Kadazan names section for now. What do you suggest the convention should be? - Yk³ talk · contrib 15:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we follow what most reliable sources use in their publications as a naming convention. Adn when referring to persons in articles, we use the person's name because some might still use patronymics while some have adopted surnames. In fact, I believe Joseph Pairin Kitingan and Maximus Ongkili]] are actually patronymic names. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 06:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for RfC?

I think this MOS is ready to be WP:RFC in order to get the guideline status. Unless anyone disagrees, I will do it myself soon. But anyone else is free to do it if you want to. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 05:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revive the page

We shall revive this page and invite everyone interested to give their idea on developing this page to be fully comprehensive to cover all pages within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia. Chongkian (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]