Talk:Strait of Malacca

message: My atlas says "Strait of Malacca," (there is only one strait) and the town is now officially spelled Melaka. Should this article be renamed? --Adam 00:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Melaka" part only makes sense if you speak Malay; "strait" instead of "straits" would be fine with me, my atlas is singular also (and uses "Malacca"  for the strait, "Melaka" for the town). --Stan 04:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: What is the geographical coordinate of its southeastern limit with the South China Sea, a peripheral sea of the Pacific Ocean? (Please reply at talk:South China Sea. Thanks.) — Instantnood 19:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southeastern limit 

message: This article needs formatting something fierce- there definitely shouldn't be a gallery on top. And the references section needs pruning and the external links in it moved to the actual external links section. --maru   (talk)  contribs 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Is anybody interested in an article specifically on Piracy in the Strait of Malacca?  There is already scattered information in this article and in the Piracy article on the subject matter.  It can place an emphasis on the history of piracy in the Malacca Strait.  Hong Qi Gong 04:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally someone responds to this idea!  :)  If I can find the time sometime in the next few days, I'll take what content is already available in other articles and make a new article called Piracy in the Strait of Malacca.  --- Hong Qi Gong 18:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I plan on adding those in the history section somehow.  By the way, help with credible sources would be much appreciated.  I Googled some up, but they don't seem too authoratative.  I'm sure plenty have been written about this topic in books on Southeast Asian history or Malacca Strait history though.  --- Hong Qi Gong 20:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate article on Piracy in the Malacca Strait 

message: Dear all, I am putting up this article for speedy deletion because it unambiguously violates copyrights here for from this website. Please attempt to fix the close paraphrasing into prose. Avataron (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They pull from World Heritage Encyclopedia which pulls from us, so it should look tremendously like our article. Ravensfire (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, Ravensfire</font></b> (talk) do you have a verification for this? I was trying to verify the source of the website and saw that at the bottom of the page writes: Copyright © 2017 World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from National Public Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation.  So it seems like they have their own copyrights. Avataron (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the full blurb at the bottom - they pull from various sources and make minor edits.  Go to the author of this, World Heritage,  go to their article.  It's oddly blank ("Come back later"), but there's the link at the top about going to the source, our article.  When looking at a possible copyright violation, you really have to be willing to dig deep.  Sometimes they've copied from us and simply not given any credit.  Here, credit is given. Ravensfire (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Look at it this way, is it not remarkable coincidence that an independently-written article somehow manages to follow all the Wikipedia conventions and idiosyncrasies, like the random-ish list of See alsos, and the orthography of links to other topics, and the expanded templates at the bottom?  That is some breathtaking chutzpah, to claim a not-Wikipedia as source, and then vaguely mention WP at the bottom of the page. Stan (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining Ravensfire and Stan. That is a reasonable assessment.  Avataron (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Just to confirm this late - the site is indeed a known Wikipedia mirror.  This is a part of a large number of sites run by the same person that attempts to hide the fact that it is a mirror, while still being in compliance with our attribution requirements. The "citational source" link on the page provides the link back to this article. Obviously, it cannot be used as a reference, and it is not a copyright violation. Kuru (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kuru (talk)! When you listed WP:MIRROR, i found the World Heritage Encyclopedia listed as a mirror here. This list is helpful.  Thanks for your inputs! Avataron (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps, I have a cleaner list here that I use for looking for mirrors. The full list of the World Heritage URLs are in the middle. Kuru (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Violations

message: This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... very doubtful this is a copyright violation, a few minutes of digging points that this is just our article being copied with credit to other places. Ravensfire (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because this NPI outfit is ripping off this article, which has been painstakingly developed over many years. Stan (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: Yeah, it's from a DOD report, doesn't mean it's correct. Look up Singapore (the tiny island at the end of the Malay peninsula), look up Indonesia (the sprawling array of islands under the label SINGAPORE). Maybe someone can fix this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C201:9B8B:5C1B:3877:8160:E996 (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  That map there 

message: I can't think of any particularly good reason why this article would need to include 'nearby important channels', and if it does, the 'gallery' of random maps of different scales and formats certainly isn't an appropriate way to present them. It is a mess. No obvious criteria for inclusion is indicated (how the heck is the Gulf of Mannar 'nearby'? It is 1,500 miles or so away...) and many of the maps are useless if one wants to actually figure out how they relate to the subject of the article location-wise.
A single map (maybe covering the area this one  does) indicating all the relevant 'important channels' might possibly be appropriate, provided a sensible definition of 'important' could be found. Otherwise, the whole lot should go, as the random off-topic collection it is. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Goog morning ! Singapore does not and never has had any shores fronting the Malacca Strait. Do you even see the limits of this strait in the article Strait of Malacca. I am not British but I am familiar with maritime geography. You will never be able to prove that Singapore is open to the Strait of Malacca. But Wikipedia asks for proof. Provide attachments. Mine are the article itself (IHO limits section) Regards 31.37.120.145 (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore ?