The article tells us what this was. This implies either that it didn't go anywhere, or that it has since been replaced by yet another system. Or is it the case that this is still the spelling system used today, but the article has failed to say so? It says "The aim was greater harmonization of the Indonesian and Malay-language orthographies." Well, did it achieve this? How was it supposed to achieve this? It would be useful for someone who knows the story to explain things more fully in the article. Largoplazo (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Now that I've looked into it, and read Malay alphabet, I see that it IS the current system. I've updated the text accordingly. Largoplazo (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- NO, this spelling system (EYD) have been replaced by new spelling system (Ejaan Bahasa Indonesia/EBI) in 2015. Although there is only minor changes compared to previous system. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The article title translates disempurnakan as 'enhanced', and the first sentence offers the alternative 'perfected'. Then, in the second paragraph, in the translation of the titles of the two guides, 'improved' is used. Shouldn't 'perfected' or 'enhanced' be used? Or if 'improved' is also a standard English translation in this context, shouldn't it be indicated along with 'perfected' as an alternative in the first sentence?
Diogenesbukananjing (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)