Talk:Mount Bombalai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plagiarism[edit]

As it currently stands, this article is almost entirely plagiarized from its first source (the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program). I don't have the knowledge to fix this, but it should probably be addressed! SkyBlueWater (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 May 2019[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. Nearly a month old and one relist means it's time to close this request. See sources below that appear to agree with the nom that the proposed title has become the common name for the subject of this article. While there are questions asked that may need to be answered, there is no explicit opposition, so this request is granted. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworthed. put'r there  04:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Bombalai HillMount Bombalai – Need to delete the redirect for maintenance move to Mount Bombalai since a large number of source use "Mount Bombalai" than "Bombalai Hill" since 1960s. Night Lanternhalo? 08:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. King of ♠ 18:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from RfD
  • Speedy delete per Wikipedia:G6. You can just use the template {{db-move}}; there's no need to discuss this here as the page move seems uncontroversial. Geolodus (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Geolodus: Thanks, already request before, but User:Jo-Jo Eumerus asking me to make a request here. Night Lanternhalo? 11:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my mistake. Geolodus (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. Night Lanternhalo? 03:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. What you're trying to do is move a page. If G6 has been declined you should take it to WP:RM. PC78 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was thinking that the G6 was simply attempting to get rid of an unneeded redirect. If you need to make place for a move, then it's a valid G6 - tag it {{Db-move}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G6 only applies if it's clearly non-controversial. I know nothing about the subject but it's not clear that this is the case: [1], [2] PC78 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding my request for the move, currently there are ten books (some are published since the 1960s) by different authors using "Mount Bombalai" to refer the subject ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] with Lonely Planet also began to use "Mount" in their recent version in 2016 [12]). While other eight books use "Bombalai Hill" ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). There are more, but the others doesn't count since it is used by the same publisher like Lonely Planet and similar author like Jane Bickersteth. Night Lanternhalo? 03:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Night Lantern, Geolodus, PC78, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Pinging current participants to inform them hatnthr discussion has moved here in the event that any comments need to be clarified above since this discussion was moved from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 18#Mount Bombalai. (Note to closer: Unless the comments above are changed, most likely, votes for "delete" are votes to "support" the move as proposed.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: I have no opinion on this move one way or the other so I don't oppose, it just seemed a little odd seeing this request at WP:RfD and it didn't appear to be sufficiently uncontroversial for a WP:G6 move. Per my link above it appears that both names are used but I haven't looked into it any further so I wouldn't know which one is more correct or common. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided Given the multiple source support for either name, I don't think this would qualify this as totally non-controversial. Does Malaysia have a government department that oversees/maintains geographical names? What is the origin of the name as there is nothing currently in the article that supports the name. My guess it was called "Hill" because of it's relatively low elevation. How/why did it get upgraded to Mountain status? Usually "Mount xxx" are named for people, but that's not a hard rule. RedWolf (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.