Talk:Blenheim Reef

Reply to Ratzer
With regard to your specific points, the rule in English is normally to use words up to ninety-nine, numbers thereafter. I expanded the abbreviations because they're easier to read, and in a popular encyclopædia rather than a scientific text I think that they're preferable; different Wikipedia editors have different views, so you'll see variations across articles. There was a discussion concerning abbreviations recently, and using the full form was suggested especially as a way of avoiding confusing differences between abbreviation styles (like 'sq. km' vs 'km²') and between systems (such as 'm.' for 'mile' and 'metre').

The issue about American vs British spelling (and it's actually much more complex than that, with Canadian, South African, Australian, New Zealand, etc, all with variants) has been debated endlessly. the current Wikipedia style is that articles can be written in any form, the first person to make a choice being followed by later editors, but that any article that relates to a person, place, etc., with roots in one or another Englsh style, can be rewritten. Here, as I wa the first person to make the choice, I automatically wrote in the English known to me. (It's not possible to write in another form of English, in my opinion; however well one thinks that one knows the diferences, one will make mistakes. Also, many people take their idiolect to be standard.)

The business about stubs is one about which I know little. I think that one school of thought is that any article that can't be expanded beyond stub size shouldn't be a separate article, but should be incorporated into a larger article. I don't go along with that myself, but I assume that any article can be expanded furhter, and the 'stub' template is a good way to draw other editors' attention.

For many of your questions, see the Manual of style (and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style).

I'll place this on the Talk page of Blenheim Reef]] too. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong Portuguese Term
In Portuguese it would be Baixo, and not Baxio.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baxio_Predassa"
 * Well, like I've stated before, there must have been a mistake in naming, because the official name for the atoll is BAXIO Predassa. Maybe it's a wrong translation, but THAT IS HOW IT IS --Maurice45 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated page
Inserted image (present in wikimedia.commons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.81.86.217 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)