Talk:Sanskrit inscriptions in Nusantara

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Southeast Asia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects 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.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

user:Dravidianhero wrongly attibutes Sanskrit inscriptions in Indonesia and Malaysia indiscriminately to Tamil people. Only inscriptions in the Tamil language can undoubtedly be attributed to Tamil people. Some inscriptions from the 11th century are from Tamil people because there were indeed Tamil people coming to islans Southeast Asia at that time. Prior to that, it was Western Austronesians who had the maritime expertise to sail far away, not the Tamil (see Liebner, Horst, "The virtual reconstruction of the Nan-Han/Cirebon wreck", EurASEAA Dublin 2012 14th International Conference), Humboldt 22:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Southeast Asia archipelago not malay world

The term Malay world is irrelevant nowadays, because there is no clarity about the actual region. what the Malay world claims is in fact only the Malay Peninsula and the coast of Sumateraisland and Borneo island (not the entire Southeast Asian archipelago) 125.164.11.229 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 January 2025

It has been proposed in this section that Sanskrit inscriptions in Nusantara be renamed and moved to Sanskrit inscriptions in the Indo-Australian Archipelago.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Sanskrit inscriptions in Nusantara → Sanskrit inscriptions in the Indo-Australian Archipelago – More up-to-date and WP:RECOGNIZABLE terminology. I'm also good with "southeast asian archipelago" or "Malay archipelago". Cremastra (u — c) 13:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sanskrit inscriptions in the Malay Archipelago. Under WP:NCPLACE, MOS:GEO and WP:CONSUB we should follow the title of the geographic article itself. "Indo-Australian Archipelago" redirects to Malay Archipelago, and this is also the modern name. While there is a Nusantara (term) article, it is on the specifically Indonesian term not a modern region, which isn't as common (especially separate from Indonesia's new capital). This likely should also be applied to Tamil inscriptions in Nusantara? Dank Jae 18:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Ahalgao, who moved articles to titles with "Nusantara" in them. I assume you have an opinion in this discussion. Cremastra (u — c) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for late reply, but there is no such thing as "Malay Archipelago", no natives called their archipelagic region as 'Malay', and the inscriptions are mainly found in Indonesia, and none of it even in the Philippines or whatsoever. And why the term 'Indo-Australia Archipelago' did not applicable as well? because it's referring to different parts of the region, and none of the inscriptions even found in Australia either. (Ahalgao (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
The archipelago article currently uses that so clearly some use internationally, and more use over "Indo-Australia Archipelago", we should be consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. However, also fine with using Southeast Asia. Personally fine with also Maritime Southeast Asia but it appears that may exclude Thailand in some definitions. "Nusantara" is not commonly used outside Indonesia as a modern geographic term and will be confused with inscriptions only in the new capital city so would also need "(term)" added.

Do agree that the original title "Malay world" seemed inappropriate and even less used. Dank Jae 10:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points. That’s why I proposed the article to be splitted or expanded into seperate articles with different titles, so it will provide more neutrality for all parties. Sanskrit inscriptions in Indonesia, Sanskrit inscriptions in Thailand, and Sanskrit inscriptions in Vietnam would be better solution I guess. And I think it will encourage each contributors from respective country to contribute more, since it is part of their history. (Ahalgao (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC))WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Move to Sanskrit inscriptions in the Malay Archipelago. Alternatively, "Sanskrit inscriptions in Maritime Southeast Asia" works. Agree with DankJae that the Tamil article be moved also. Srnec (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Maritime Southeast Asia" one is one of better approach/options, but since the inscriptions were mainly found in Indonesia, I do really think that it have to be more specified, and why I chose "Nusantara", it's because it represents its original historical scope/realm, the exact locations where these inscriptions were commonly found. Thank you. (Ahalgao (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC))WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Splits into Sanskrit inscriptions in Java, Sanskrit inscriptions in Thailand, and Sanskrit inscriptions in Vietnam. I propose this option, since it's more neutral and fits to each respective identity, because the inscriptions are not merely found in one specific region. And also, it gives the recognition to the authenticity and nativeness of places where these inscriptions were found, since no natives of respectives locations identified themselves as 'Malay' (which is a British-given misleading term). It gives more neutrality and respect, while also providing more specific historical narratives. (Ahalgao (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC))WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Move to Sanskrit inscriptions in Maritime Southeast Asia, although I'm fine with "...Malay Archipelago" too. "Indo-Australian Archipelago" is (pun alert:)insular terminology mostly used by biologists, but completely unheard of in humanities and regional studies. "Nusantara" is an ideology-laden term and has a fluid range due to differing national POVs about what it includes. –Austronesier (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sanskrit inscriptions in Maritime Southeast Asia, the term Maritime Southeast Asia is more appropriate than the Malay Archipelago because it covers a wider area without being limited to a particular (modern “malay”) ethnic or cultural group. The Malay Archipelago is an old term that is almost forgotten, especially in Indonesia. Sayurasem (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malay Archipelago is an old term that is almost forgotten. No, Ngrams tells an entirely different story[1]. And I doubt that Indonesian readers of English Wikipedia who are proficient in English (and read English texts other than Wikpedia articles) are not familiar with the term. (Certain sectors in Indonesia might be unhappy with that name especially due to the troll-fueled toxic discourse in Indonesian social media that equates "Malay" with "Malaysia", but that's not what the global community of editors of English Wikipedia should worry about beyond countering the abusive editing (see the sock-strikes!) that stem from these sentiments).

For considerations of recognizability of its phrasal components alone, "Sanskrit inscriptions in the Malay Archipelago" would actually be the better title. I nevertheless prefer "Sanskrit inscriptions in Maritime Southeast Asia", because Maritime Southeast Asia is the term that is generally used in sources that talk about Sanskrit inscriptions in this geographical area and thus is also more apt to appear in the title for this article. –Austronesier (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sanskrit inscriptions in Maritime Southeast Asia Clearer title. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
move to Sanskrit inscriptions in Maritime Southeast Asia per Sayurasem. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]