Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
ASEAN was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade 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.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I have reverted a few edits by @36.68.19.170 which seemingly removed content about Indonesia being a member of ASEAN. There is still one edit I haven't reverted as I am at risk of breaching WP:3RR. If you are the IP editor I mentioned, could you please explain your edits? Fork99 (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
The article has been tagged with Template:Use British English for almost a decade now. Previous to IP's corrections, the article erroneously used a mixture of both British and American English. The whole purpose of MOS:RETAIN is consistency; given that things were previously a mixture even though it has long been decided that British English is what this article is to be written in, there should be no issue with fixing the errors to bring this article back in line with its ENGVAR standard.Additionally, if we needed any more reinforcement, ASEAN itself uses British English. (example)RachelTensions (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, it was User:Iiii I I I who reverted the IP. FWIW, what is actually used on the article carries more weight than how the article was tagged; the tag should reflect current usage, and if non-BrE is the one that is being used, that should be retained, not what the tag is. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
In that case, the "current usage" pushing to be retained is a mix of both British and American English. Seems like British English was used for the majority of the article's life, with more recent additions using American English. Should we not be bringing it back to the one that was established first? RachelTensions (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The article in 2004 uses the spellings "organization" and "stabilization". Now, even if the first English variant was (gasp!) AmE, MOS:RETAIN is plain: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article". It's not which variant was the first, but which "variety's consistent usage has been established". You can argue that since the IP had to change several AmE spellings to BrE ones, then at the very least BrE is not the variety that has "consistent usage". Howard the Duck (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The British English tag actually dated up to February 2015, when Seligne made major edits. On the last edit before that editor's edits, "defense" was spelled like that 44 times, while "defence" was spelled 7 times. "Organization" 35 times (excluding category names and when it appears on navboxes, while "organisation" 31 times. "-sation" appears 51 times, while "-zation" 66 times. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
