Talk:Indonesia

The redirect The world's most populous Muslim nation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 17 § The world's most populous Muslim nation until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pindad Anoa APS-3 RLG.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

So this article was previously nominated for GA back in March this year but failed on 15 July 2025 due to issues with verifiability, as per details above. Since then, I’ve spent time addressing the issues raised in that review and improving the article’s overall sourcing discipline and balance.

Here's the list of improvements since that July 2025 version.

• Inline citations and attribution: Statements previously lacking in inline citations (like evaluative or descriptive claims) have been either properly sourced, reworded to remove peacocks or attributed to reliable secondary sources.
• Source–claim alignment: Several instances where citations don't clearly support the statements in the body article (like misaligned badminton-football ref, history, and geography references noted in the GA review) have been corrected or removed.
• Hard-to-trace sources: Difficult-to-verify refs like unattributed or poorly identifiable publications have been replaced with traceable ones or the supported claims have been adjusted to match what the sources say.
• Numerical precision: Statistics and factual claims (like the non existing volcano counts) have been revised so that numbers are explicitly stated in the cited sources rather than just inferred from captions.
• Neutrality: Sections touching on human rights, environmental degradation, history, and politics have been tightened to ensure clear attribution and compliance with WP:NPOV.
• Section balance and completeness: Several sections were reworded/remade to show proportional balance, to add contextual framing where they were previously just list-like or underdeveloped, but without expanding too much beyond what I believe to be a GA-appropriate scope.

As of the current version (Dec 2025), the article appears much closer to meeting the GA criterion of verifiability, and not to mention strengths on everything else like structure, coverage, prose etc. FYI, I’m not planning to re-nominate the article myself. Just wanted to let interested editors know that the article is now far more GA-ready than it was at the time of the July 2025 failure. AdaCiccone (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Indonésie has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 15 § Indonésie until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Indonesie has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 15 § Indonesie until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Please, respect the contributions of other Wikipediawan, so we make the content updated with better upgraded information and appealing vision. If anyone want give enough care of hope better version. We all make it together, we're gonna make it with god faith and tolerant view as core value. All criticisms are natural appreciation with preserving intentions, yet any deletion is not favoured by all. Discern well. Anppasew (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anppasew: I believe AdaCiccone explained clearly their reasoning in the edit summary when making that change. If you disagree, please raise the issue on the talk page (WP:EPTALK). Ckfasdf (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: Wait a minute, their? an account of multiple humen? Anppasew (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

See Singular they. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

heard a buzz American language, Sorry but sinking out of topic for one moment here for beyond rhetoric, are no linguist among thee? are you American or Brit, who the holding master on advanced technology and explorative innovation all everywhere on this planet, then at the same earth cannot discover & give a neutral gender third party entity? for yo' wise way, in Indonesia, we have word Dia, (shortened Dia =) Ia, Beliau (for respected ones), Dirinya, and others. but ironically I heard a lot fresh slank or vernacular idiom of thine Inggleis, while core language could not refreshed? may multi-billion bankmails (ye know $) for NASA should hire to fix and create their own coin American language departed from English language mother? as Spanish language departed from Latin language with almost retaining grammar and Latin rules. { } Oke, Just imagine. If no he can affirm himself, nor she can affirm herself, is the one posses identity crisis? I might Indonesian 'dia' in English as "nohns" (not he not she) Excuse me for blabbering.

Back on Image issues, AdaCiccone began the debate on my selection of pictures. nohns reasoning of avoid visual overemphasis I and all Wikipedia-one need to understand his elaboration so no wrong understanding here. Thank Ckfasdf for response. Anppasew (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The singular "they" is a standard part of English. As for the images, images are meant to complement the text and not be decorative. It would be helpful if you could explain how the image you switched improved understanding or was of generally better quality with the same improvement on understanding. As for the second image, it squished the text between itself and the existing picture which is generally something the Manual of Style suggests to avoid. CMD (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind, I indented all your comments for better viewing. :D Anyway, Anppasew I'm interested in seeing this article receive the Good Article badge in the near future. My reasoning for the removals isn't about rejecting contributions but about ensuring that illustrations and any visual objects directly support reader understanding and remain consistent with layout guidance in the Manual of Style.

You can see yourself that the article is already quite image-dense, so some trimming is sometimes necessary to avoid layout congestion and to keep visuals focused on explanatory value rather than decoration. Like I said, the longer-term aim is to move the article toward Good Article quality, where image relevance, placement, and restraint are part of the review criteria.

Hope this clears things up. AdaCiccone (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Reasons for British English:
Proximity to Malaysia and Singapore?
Consistency?
Proximity to Australia?
ASEAN English? ~2026-14907-06 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a request here? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 22:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I have a request here. ~2026-14998-12 (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

What is your request? It's in the English it was written in, is there a reason to change it to something else? Are there particular words or phrases which seem odd in this context? CMD (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

A brief follow-up, last December 2025 I said I wouldn't nominate the article for GA myself. I changed my mind and I think I'll go ahead and nominate the article. The article has improved a lot since the failed July 2025 nomination, and I believe it is in a much stronger position now to meet the GA criteria. I'll just do a quick check of the article before actually nominating it.

For reference, this is the last GA review. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)