Talk:Indonesia

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)

I don't understand, so i don't have a request here. ~2026-24358-84 (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

To answer your question, I've looked through the page history (both article and talk) and found no discussions as to why the WP:ENGVAR changed to British variety. It once used the American variety (and later mixed use of US-British) but one editor named Muffin Wizard changed it in 2015. Later editors have kept the present British variety since then. AdaCiccone (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article should be updated to describe Indonesia as "an Archipelagic state" to bring it in line with other island/archipelagic countries, such as Japan, thePhilippines, and New Zealand. Brettopia (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

IMO, lede already cover that point. The second sentence explicitly states that Indonesia is the world's largest archipelagic state, so repeating the term in the first and second sentence would be make unnecessary redundant word. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I just want to know why Sonnwäg H (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If you have questions, you can ask them at the WP:reference desk instead. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 04:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Capital of Indonesia is a bit sketchy on this question, but the project to relocate the capital seems to be falling behind schedule despite being a priority of the Prabowo administration. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Jakarta will retain the status, functions, and role of the national capital until a presidential decree formally transfers the capital to Nusantara. I've added this to the Administrative divisions section, along with the appropriate source referring to the Constitutional Court. I believe this answers your question. AdaCiccone (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

My removal for the names of the House Speaker, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court is about infobox discipline, and summary needs of this particular article.

• MOS:INFOBOX says that an infobox should summarize key facts that appear in the article. These names and additional officeholders aren't in the body. If you read the Government and politics section, it is primarily about the structure of the executive, legislature, and judiciary.
• In this way, the infobox is more concise. At the same time, this preserves key political information about the country, that it is a unitary presidential republic, and that the President and Vice President are the country's principal national executive offices.
• Comparisons with other country articles can be helpful yes, but that alone shouldn't decide the issue. I'm of the opinion that each article ultimately should stand on its own merits. For this particular article, the infobox content should be based on this article's own summary needs.

TL;DR, infobox shouldn't include those officeholder details when the body doesn't treat them as an article content. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, in the Trias Politica of Power (specially Presidential system), there must be a Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branch. And each country must show important figures in each of these officials. Look at the countries of Brazil, USA, Turkey, all of which are complete according to the trias politica, not necessarily just the executive branch. Baqotun0023 (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, you can to read WP:IMPARTIAL first before to remove of this infobox. Baqotun0023 (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think WP:IMPARTIAL applies here. That's more about using impartial tone when presenting disputes and viewpoints. Nowhere does it say that it requires an infobox to allot rows equally among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

The infobox already identifies the legislature and its chambers, while the Government and politics subsection lays out the executive, legislature, and judiciary. The question is whether the names of several current presiding officers are key summary facts about Indonesia.

MOS:INFOBOX says that an infobox should summarize key facts in the article, exclude unnecessary content, and remain concise. It also says that which parts of an infobox are used is determined by consensus at each individual article. Those country articles you mentioned may be useful comparisons, but the more relevant question is whether these officeholder names serve the summary needs of this article.

Listing an institution is different from listing officeholders. Removing the House Speaker and the chief justices doesn't remove nor diminish the legislative and judicial branches. It'd leave the institutional structure to the body and linked articles. My concern remains that these names aren't treated as a content in the article. Adding them therefore goes beyond what this infobox needs to summarize.

Maybe one idea to consider is to add those names instead to the Government and politics subsection so they can remain in the infobox. I'd disagree to that. That section right now aligns well with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; it summarizes the country's political system and its principal institutions. More specific and changeable details I think should be in the sub-articles instead. The names could of course be mentioned if an individual officeholder is important to understanding a major political development, but listing the current holders just to mirror the infobox would just add detail without improving the summary. The body should determine what the infobox summarizes, not the other way around. AdaCiccone (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there is no ecology section for the country with the 2nd highest biodiversity index score. ~2026-38966-23 (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The article has the "Biodiversity" and "Environment and conservation" sub-sections. They both cover bio-geography and endemism, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, forests, reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds, habitat loss, threatened species, protected areas, and conservation policy. Much of what might appear under a section called "Ecology" is already present, although that exact title isn't used.

I'd be cautious about using the claim that Indonesia has the second-highest biodiversity-index ranking. There's no single universal measure of biodiversity, and rankings generally vary according to different criteria. That is, whether they count recorded species, endemism, habitat integrity, ecosystem condition, or other factors. "Global Biodiversity Index" ranks Indonesia second, but it's a composite ranking based on six groups of plants and animals, and more importantly, it acknowledges data limitations. More authoritative sources describe Indonesia as one of the world's megadiverse countries and give separate rankings for particular taxonomic groupings.

If you think there's important ecological subjects that the current Biodiversity and Environment and conservation sub-sections don't cover, please identify them. The absence of a sub-section or section named "Ecology" doesn't mean a gap in coverage, IMO. AdaCiccone (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Indonesia consists of diverse ethnic groups. So, would it be better to simply merge the four largest ethnic groups into the 600+ ethnic groups in Indonesia? I think showcasing these four ethnic groups creates a sense of exclusivity among the many tribes that aren't represented. moreover the argument has been duplicated in here. Baqotun0023 (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean that rather than singling out the four largest ethnic groups, we should just say that Indonesia has more than 600 ethnic groups and leave the detailed figures to the body? Like the "Indigenous languages" row? AdaCiccone (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe yes, why not just eliminate the 4 largest ethnic groups to simplify "+600 ethnic groups in Indonesia", instead of showing the 4 largest ethnic groups which would feel excessive according to the content of the article below. Baqotun0023 (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

For representation, I have no strong opinion. I agree to just list it as "600 ethnic groups" because that would make the infobox shorter and make it serve its purpose more effectively (MOS:IBP) Let's wait out for other editors to see what they think. Or you can just be bold and edit it yourself right away. Then direct whoever objects to that to this discussion here. AdaCiccone (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)