Talk:Oceania/Archive 2

Capital of Tokelau
All things considered, i reckon that the capital of Tokelau should be Wellington? any pros and cons?moza 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In a number of the compendiums I consulted when compiling the table, I found that information lacking for Tokelau; as well, this is noted in its country infobox. While Wellington is the juridic capital – by virtue of being within NZ's domain – Tokelau is administrated locally and, thus, the current rendition seems appropriate.  Perhaps we should indicate W. in the note below instead? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with whatever you come up with, just musing, as you can see. But i note that its status is said to be a non-self-governing colonial territory and a semi-autonomous territory of New Zealand.
 * OK; I'll embellish the note below: if we were to parse the capitals of the various territories, particularly those on an arguably contentious UN list regarding 'ambiguous' territories that do have proper local seats, many of the renditions in the table and infoboxes for said 'colonies' would have to change for I know not what. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-organisation
Per the (other) continental articles and pending a groundswell of opposition, I've been bold and nixed the redundant list of territories which is essentially duplicated in the summative table; I've not detailed the political status of the various territories but I might later (this might be too much information for the current table). Perhaps the column concerning population density can be retrofitted to succinctly detail political status instead. Of course, this article (and similar continental/regional articles) can stand for some reorganisation (e.g., re-ordering of sxns) for consistency ... perhaps in a manner similar to the structure of country articles as prescribed in the country wikiproject? Anyhow, there you go!`E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Resurrecting merge section from archive
Editor 60.230.211.176 has added tags suggesting Australasia and Oceania be merged. This was proposed before, about six months ago, and the discussion had been gathering comments up until the day before it was archived a month ago. So I think it's worth resurrecting the old discussion. I'll paste it back in below. -- Avenue 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge (with Australasia)
Hi, in order to have the merge discussions at one place, I hv suggested that all discussions about the proposed merge take place here so that continuity is not lost (else, we would end up with discussions on both talkpages - the other talk page being Talk:Australasia making it difficult to follow who is saying what). I believe that the merge is justified because of the following reasons: - --Gurubrahma 11:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Both the articles cover similar ground, by and large.
 * 2) Duplication of articles is not justified.
 * 3) The controversy about the existence of these two terms can be dealt in a separate section in the merged article.
 * 4) The controversy about which term is more prefered can be debated. Hence, I have not suggested which article should be retained and which one should be converted into a redirect.


 * Honestly, I think merging these two would confuse the issues. With Oceania, the question is whether or not Australia and New Zealand are included, whereas with Australasia, the question is whether anything except Australia and New Zealand are included.  It seems that the terms have some overlap, but are definitely not synonymous. -- Dpark 01:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dpark. Perhaps it would be fruitful to talk about ways in which these articles could be made more distinctive. rodii 04:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I, too, oppose the proposal, and echo Rodii's suggestion.--cj | talk 04:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose These two terms are not synonymous and should remain in discrete articles; I also agree with rodii.  E Pluribus Anthony 05:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Very Strong oppose Brian (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been about a month since this proposal was made, and the only reaction has been negative to very negative, and I think that should be considered the consensus. If no one objects, I'm going to remove the mergewith template soon. That is not to say these articles don't need improvement, just that this particular idea isn't going to fly. OK? rodii 02:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While I still believe that the articles can and should be merged, the consensus, without doubt, is against the merger. I agree with rodii and I'll save him some work by removing the merge templates myself ;-) Btw, it should be ok as long as the See also section in each article provides a link to the other article. --Gurubrahma 05:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the distinction is justified. There are a lot of overlapping spheres within the Pacific, and depending on whether you're talking about colonial history/language/people/climate/sport/politics whatever, the different terms serve to highlight different associations. For example, Australia and New Zealand have a lot in common, but in different contexts New Zealand is more associated with the Pacific Islands, and at other times other groupings are also useful. Anecdotally, I've found Oceania to be the new fangled term (and really only associate it it with soccer and the olympics), with Pacific/Polynesia/Australasia being the terms I'm more familiar with. So I guess that's a belated oppose...Limegreen 10:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur with rodii and Lg: there are too many interpretations and definitions regarding Australia/Australasia/Oceania/etc. Having all of these distinct treatments in one article would confuse the terms and issue, so it isn't unnecessary repetition and (if in a single article) redirects would lead a visitor incorrectly down a garden path.


 * These various interpretations are not only limited to the current topic, either: I'm finding other landmass descriptions (continent, region, etc.) and content somewhat lacking. For example, the A/NZ interpretation that Lg describes is somewhat similar to what some may or may not consider North America (for various reasons): Canada/United States (which the UN describes as Northern America, et al.), Central America (which commonly excludes Mexico but the UN does not), and the Caribbean.


 * To that end, I've been on a minor quest of sorts to improve the related articles/templates, various definitions (where applicable), and add data tables (others for Asia and Oceania (which generally encompasses Australia/New Zealand and surrounding island territories) to follow soon!) explaining these distinctions and summarising important data points. When there's any doubt (a la neutrality), I'm deferring to UN geographic categorisations.  Please let me know if you've any questions.  E Pluribus Anthony 18:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support I concur that it should be merged, I don't think Australia is even the name of the continent anymore, I think Australia, New Zealand, and the islands are all the continent of Oceania. I mean, South America isn't called Brazil. Matty-chan 20:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oceania is not a continent in any geographical or geological sense. It is a region.--cj | talk 03:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Australasia and Oceania are two different regions. Suggesting they are merged into one article is tantamount to suggesting Central America be merged with North America or New South Wales with the Australia article. Factoid Killer 20:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose and support speedy removal of merge proposal, you may as well suggest that Australasia be merged with Asia.-gadfium 19:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - Oceania and Australasia are two entirely different concepts - it is vital that they are not merged. Ridiculous proposal. Kahuroa 00:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Population
In the Oceania page the listed "1 July 2002" population estimate is listed as 28,159,300 which is roughly 10% of the actual population. As a result the tabulated population totals for Oceania is also correct. I do not know what the actual number should be, but I do know it should be over 200,000,000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.99.166 (talk • contribs).
 * How do you arrive at that figure? Are you including all of Indonesia (population over 200 million), not just the extreme eastern part (which has a population of under 5 million)? -- Avenue 23:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Australasia again
Someone wants to delete Australasia as a heading from the territories table. I've reverted it for now, but it should be discussed here, I guess. Previous discussions have established that some people don't like the term and some do. I don't know of a more neutral term for that region (or any other term at all) and think it's a good idea to have a subdivision in the table. So, discuss, please. It's currently in, why take it out?  &middot; rodii &middot;  20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not been involved with this page, so I'm new to it. I see no reason to take it out and several to leave it in. For a start, we should have titles for all sub-sections or none and Australasia is the best title for the first sub-section. --Bduke 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also support the retention of Australasia - its not broke - why fix it - it seems a logical title to me. Kahuroa 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support retention of Australasia per others. --Limegreen 00:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, this issue is apparently spillover from another discussion taking place on the Talk:South America? This particular article uses the four-part Australasia/Micro/Mela/Polynesia division, but anon 142.150.134.50 and User:Alinor seem to be battling it out about using the UN scheme, which (in Oceania) has "Australia and New Zealand" instead. 142.* keeps asking in edit summaries for people to discuss here, but he/she doesn't discuss here. I'm not sure how to go forward on this.  &middot; rodii &middot;  12:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've restored this to a slightly revised version with "Australasia" plus a note about how this term is disputed. This is intended just as a starting point for discussion. If we want to change the terminology or take out the heading I don't care, but let's work out a direction before we do any more reverting.  &middot; rodii &middot;  16:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On reflection I am going to change my view given above. I think the heading should be "Australia and New Zealand". The places listed are Australia and New Zealand plus some Australian Territories. The term Australasia is sometimes used to include all the places listed under Melanesia, particularly PNG, so Australasia is inappropriate here. We do clearer need some heading. --Bduke 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a place "Australia and New Zealand" can link to that makes sense? 142.*'s latest strategy was to link to Australasia but pipe it as "Australia and New Zealand", which sort of makes sense if we're going for "that part of Australasia that's in Oceania" but might be a surprise for someone clicking on that link. This basic problem--that geographical classifications just aren't very tidy--has to come up a lot, especially where national boundaries don't match regional divisions. Our "Micronesia" region contains outcroppings of Polynesian cultures, for example. I'm for being broadly correct and not obsessing over the overlaps and underlaps, and letting people explore the niceties via links.  &middot; rodii &middot;  02:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just propose to removing the heading as a compromise solution - because "Australia and New Zealand" doesn't look as good title, but also "Australasia" also includes Papua and other Melanesian islands (according to the Australasia page) already listed under Melanesia... Alinor 10:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm the anon. :) I agree with you somewhat, R.; this is difficult to address.  The UN system uses "Australia and New Zealand" to classify that particular region.  I presume that "Australasia" was not chosen due to the varying interpretations of that term (e.g., A + NZ + New Guinea, etc.) ... just as much as the other three regions of Oceania are rather loosely defined too (e.g., inclusion of East Timor).  While I'm not wholly resistant to using Australasia for that section (if, for anything, lack of anything better and since some works like Britannics use it to refer to the A-NZ dyad), I'd prefer to use the UN term or to leave it blank since entries below (in that section) clearly indicate one or the other.  I hope this makes sense.  FWIW: I do like your compromise version, R.

As for the other table entries (e.g., South America), recent similar changes have been wilfully made without any discussion or reasoning as to why the prior versions, which have prevailed for months, are insufficient. In addition, they are unsourced and contestable since most common publications (e.g, atlases) do not corroborate recent changes. Thus, the prior versions should hold and I've nothing more to note on that issue. 142.150.134.65 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So, is there a consensus about the "easier" issue of Australia/NZ heading? To Remove it? Alinor 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly preferable, not only for reasons of simplicity, but above all since the term Australasia, as has thoroughly been established in a previous discussion, is not very viable at all, being some sort of diffuse categorisation regarding the intermediate Pacific regions, with little appeal, as far as the ambition is to maintain a certain conceptual clarity. /Copywriter


 * I would like there to be a heading. I'm OK with the Aus&NZ linked to Australasia version or the current version. I am against the delete option (but not in a fight-to-the-death sort of way).  &middot; rodii &middot;  04:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another option: move NZ to the Polynesia section, and change the Australasia heading to Australia. This is a much cleaner classification in my opinion. If NZ stays where it is, then I agree with rodii about the heading. -- Avenue 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting idea. If we do that we're no longer attempting to follow the UN classification and instead following some sort of ad hoc "culture area" scheme, which could be OK, but invites other kinds of problems (e.g., Nukuoro and Kapingamarangi are Polynesian enclaves within Micronesia (the FSM)--what do we do with them?). But it's not a bad idea, as long as we're willing to avoid getting mired in the details. The UN scheme, while somewhat arbitrary, has the virtue of being by an outside source, so we're not getting into original research issues. As I said above, let's be pragmatic and let the links sort out the details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodii (talk • contribs).
 * I also like this proposal. Alinor 07:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We are indeed operating in a geograpically complex domain, although somehow the rather basic and rarely argued distinction between Remote and Near Oceania appears rather robust, in particular when in comes to Near Oceania, by all standards including merely Australia, New Guinea and the Salomon Islands, which makes Remote Oceania the true residual sphere open to alternative interpretations and categorisations. I don't know whether a stronger focus on this overall division of the Oceanian territories might to some extent make the somehow hard-to-solve Australasia dilemma superfluous. /Copywriter


 * I've added an extra note as to the contentious nature of the term "Australasia". A lot of the problems with it are not connected with the "Austral-" emphasising Australia, they are to do with the "-asia" linking some parts of Oceania with a continent that whey have little connection with. I've also added a note in the table saying that NZ is sometimes included in Polynesia and PNG sometimes in Australasia. Personally I favour Avenue's suggestion above, but hopefully what I've done is a reasonable compromise for the time being until this matter is resolved. Count me as another who dislikes the term Australasia, BTW. Grutness...wha?  01:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The gradually evolving consensus regarding the non-distinct nature of the Australasia geographical category must be welcomed. Apart from the slightly ridiculous, post-colonial character of the name itself, it above all does not add very much clarity when it comes to identifying the relevant sub-sectors of the Pacific map, adequately linking these into world geography. Copywriter, 20 November 2006


 * I guess the prevailing issue to me is that the term Australia and New Zealand is the term used in Australia and New Zealand for Australia and New Zealand. The term Australasia is used occasionally but is controversial and pretty much archaic. By happy happenstance the term in current use by Australians and New Zealanders is also the term used by the U.N., our most authoritative source for sub-continental groupings. So there's really no problem except what to link to. I'd not be averse to creating a stub page that talks about Australia and New Zealand as a political grouping. There's plenty to mention. Ben Arnold (217.33.200.148 13:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Supposedly Australia and New Zealand is the name traditionally having been used to cover the corresponding domains from a political point of view, not only locally, but in Britain as well. Compare for example the party program of the British Labour party from 1950. “We in Great Britain stand - in all respects except for distance - closer to our relatives in Australia and New Zealand far away at the other end of the world than we stand to Europe." Compare also the motivation of the Australian Nobel Prize winner in literature of 1973, Patrick White: “for an epic and psychological narrative art, which has brought a new continent into world literature”. It is not until recently that it has at all been an issue how the territory shall be named, not to discriminate the somewhat smaller countries in the area. The term Australiasia is indeed an attempt to solve the dilemma, however not a very successful one, as seems to have been agreed. /Copywriter February 9th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.231.76.234 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand and Polynesia
It would seem unfair, almost strange, to place New Zealand in Polynesia, since Niue and Tokelau are New Zealand dependancies. I understand that New Zealand is a part of Polynesia, but I would think that it would be better to have it seperate, much like Australia is listed. I am talking about the Countries and territories of Oceania, that is displayed at the bottom of somepages, such as the Oceania page, Midway Atoll etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phoenix715 (talk • contribs).
 * I don't follow why having Polynesian dependencies would make it strange to place NZ in Polynesia. Do you feel that only countries outside Polynesia should have dependencies there? -- Avenue 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why is that a problem. Kahuroa 04:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not to do with Niue and Tokelau; it's because "New Zealand is within the Polynesian triangle and in this sense is part of Polynesia - the Māori of New Zealand constitute one of the major cultures of Polynesia." Nurg 02:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Palau
In the first lines of the Palau article it is written "...it is traditionally considered to be Melanesian". Also, it looks so by virtue of its location. So, should we put it there? Alinor 06:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Another "classification leak." I think what that article is saying, but not clearly, is that traditionally Palau was considered Melanesian but more recently was considered part of Micronesia (because it was part of the US Trust Territories). This leaves us with a situation where we either have to decide on where it should go on our own--which could lead to niggling disputes and WP:NOR issues--or we fall back on some outside authority. Our main outside authority so far has been the UN.


 * By the way, see the infobox here: Template:Pacific_Islands, which puts Palau in Micronesia and New Zealand in Polynesia. So we already have some inconsistency going on. Maybe the folks at WikiProject_Countries should think about this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodii (talk • contribs).


 * I think, that when dealing with "Territories and regions" we should focus on geographical features - not on human-related, political, historical, etc. - so the UN categorization starting from the Trust Mandates (entierly human-related issue) is not a proper source in this case... Alinor 06:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, we should indicate both political and geophysical classifications. Why limit an entry to either pure physical or mere human centered divisions? Whatever categories of classifications exist, we should enter them in the article. So what do the geological authorities say about Palau? General rec 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia
According to the article, Indonesia is part of Oceania, but only half of the islands in the Indonesian Archipelago are highlighted in the world map. Is only half of the nation considered a part of Oceania? Or is the map inaccurate? Orichalcon 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction between the article text and the map, because the article says that only the eastern parts of Indonesia (beyond the Wallace Line) are considered part of Oceania. Do you have any suggestions for how we can make this clearer? -- Avenue 00:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, your snappy reply to my question is more than enough. Orichalcon 01:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant no offence. In hindsight my reply wasn't that tactful. What I should have said was that you are not the only person to misread the article in that way, so it would be good to make it clearer. And, having misread it, you are probably in a better position than most to judge where the article is confusing or unclear. I have reworded the introduction slightly to clarify which parts of Indonesia qualify. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have about whether this is clear enough, or any suggestions about how we could improve it. -- Avenue 01:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. The only parts in the article that mention it are "those parts of Indonesia east of the Wallace Line" as well as the notes at the bottom. It was a brief enough mention that I didn't notice it until you pointed out that it was indeed there. If as you said I'm not the only person who's asked that before, maybe it should be made clearer with its own paragraph or a more clarifying description. Since I don't really understand why only half the country is considered a part of Oceania myself. After having a read of what the Wallace Line is, which seems to just be a distinction of different animal species, I don't really understand how it relates to defining what is considered a part of Oceania. Maybe pointing out in this article how that all works and citing an official source on it? I don't know. Either way, that's all that's really confusing me. I've always considered all of Indonesia part of Oceania, which is also what I was taught in school. Orichalcon 10:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would guess that it's because the continent of Oceania is being defined by geologists - largely in terms of different tectonic plates - and the underlying reason behind the different species either side of the Wallace Line is that the two regions sit on different plates - the single nation of Indonesia spanning both of them. In the same way that Russia spans Europe and Asia, and until mid-late 19th Century also had a toehold in North America (Alaska). 4u1e 02:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very good point. Perhaps the explanation about the tectonic plates should be added to the article along with some references and a diagram. It makes it more clear as to why Oceania includes those indonesian islands and not the others. Orichalcon 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

East Timor is part of Asia, Southeast Asia more specifically.
East Timor is part of Asia, Southeast Asia more specifically, PERIOD! Even while East Timor has cultural and linguistical ties with "Melanesia" it is geographically part of Asia (Southeast Asia) and universally accepted so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.255.230.227 (talk • contribs).

 &middot; rodii &middot;  13:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed your bolding again, please stop that.
 * "PERIOD!" is not an argument.
 * "Universally accepted," of course, is exactly the problem--along boundaries things are sometimes fuzzy or disputed, and this is one case. Our own article on East Timor says "Contrary to common misconception, most of the inhabitants of archipelagic Southeast Asia are not Pacific Islanders. However, it is worth noting that the eastern parts of Indonesia and Timor-Leste (east of Wallace line) are geographically parts of Oceania." Various other sources, including the UN, divide things up differently. All we can do is report the varying interpretations, and we do that.

The status wikipedia gives to East Timor is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_nation#East_Timor Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.197.75 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Formal country names
I find the table much harder to read now that the countries are called by their formal names, following this edit by 71.99.110.7. I'm tempted to change them back. Any thoughts? -- Avenue 02:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support that. If readers need to know official names, they're in the individual country articles.  &middot; rodii &middot;  04:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I support as well, this is a nightmare to read now. The countries should go by their casual names, who calls Australia "The Commonwealth of Australia"? Sure it's a commonwealth, but that'd be like calling Christmas "Christmas, the birth of Jesus Christ, day." Switch it back. Orichalcon 05:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I support switching it back.-gadfium 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The anon who switched to the formal names also switched all the other continent articles to such names. I'm not aware of any policy or even discussion on which style should be used. I think this should be discussed at a more central location; perhaps Village pump (policy), and all continent articles should use a uniform style. I'll invite the anon to join this discussion initially.-gadfium 06:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, "Christmas, the birth of Jesus Christ, day." I'm fine w/it, I guess I just did it to see if anyone would've cared, I mean the short forms are in the official names.71.99.110.7 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oceania
Notes:

Asia
Notes:

because of error of appearing/editing notes for both tables are repeated below the second

Questions to IP 65.x/14x that opposes these tables
Alinor 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You are arguing about the line between Asia and Oceania. You seems to disagree with Wallace line. Why? What about Melanesia as distingusher? You seems to disagree with both. Maybe provide alternative path then?

Please provide authoritative sources that indicate the Wallace Line is or should be used as the delimiter for Asia and Oceania. Of course, I do not question its validity -- since Wallace is so short-changed when it comes to the theory of evolution (sometimes credited with Darwin) -- but the table seems to have been revised as such without discussion nor consensus ... and it's not necessarily agreeable. There are a dozen similar biogeographic lines (e.g., Lydekker). As well, the Penguin Dictionary of Biology indicates the Wallace Line is not a clear line of demarcation. Moreover, ecozones are not necessarily synonymous with continents or their regions: the Wallace line is primarily a biogeographic delimiter between the 'Australasian/Oceanic’ and Indomalayan ecozones (since renamed to Arctogea and something else that currently escapes me). The Wallace line has little relevance phyisographically and almost none geopolitically.

Speaking of which: no sources have been provided to indicate that East Timor is 'geographically' – again, you mean physiographically -- in Oceania. (Mind you, I don't necessarily challenge this; see below.) Timor is separated from the rest of the Australian shelf by the Timor Trench; please source that it is of Oceania. (The Wp aticle indicates only that it is 'peripherally Melanesian' only.) And note that (according to Britannica) Australasia is one region within Oceania that (depending on definition) overlaps Melanesia (including East Timor), Micronesia, and Polynesia. Definitions for Oceania vary: some include Australia/New Zealand (e.g., Natl Geo Atlas print refers to the region as ‘Australia and Oceania’), some exclude both, and some include ALL of the islands of the Malay Archipelago (e.g., East Timor, but also Borneo). For various reasons, the UN has classified East Timor as being Melanesian, as have other sources (Encyclopedia Britannica) so this should’t be problematic.

Many reliable sources (e.g., Collins Atlas, Natl Geo) include Papua New Guinea in Oceania, splitting the island of New Guinea between Asia and Oceania. SImilarly, East Timor is included in Asia. The original table – per the cited UN scheme -- delimited the countries this way. Moreover, retaining the arrangement of the status quo table would reflect representations (e.g., maps, tables) in common publications, so a geopolitical split is not at all incorrect.

Given varied interpretations/definitions for what exactly Oceania is and the above, a geopolitical split per the UN scheme isn’t ideal but IMO better than other more tenuous options presented. 65.92.173.131 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, don't use political classifications for the continental tables (see Talk:South America) - such as classification that divide the island of New Guinea in both Asia and Oceania - only because the western part is inside Indonesia. Same for East Timor. Until you provide dividing line different than the current one I will continue to revert the table to its physical version. Alinor 07:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember, most sources indicate Oceania is not a continent. Regarding your cease-and desist 'order', I don't think so.  Not only have you not sourced your assertions -- still -- but you continue to insinuate edits of dubious quality that are not agreeable.  And bolding text doesn't enhance your position.  Until you do as requested, I see no reason to refrain and will not discuss this further with YOU ... others, please feel free to comment. 65.92.97.9 20:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any cease-and-desist or other orders. Bolding is used only to show where our disagreement is (see Talk:South America for details). You provide some sources, but they do not support in any way your wish to change the continental tables from physical to political. Oceania is not a "continent" in the sense of a big land-mass. No one argues about this. You make edits and now refuses to discuss them. Alinor 07:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In your riposte above, you have avoided my questions (almost ad hominem), not providing any reliable sources to support your editions to the tables -- i.e., use of the Wallace Line as a delimiter. While a geopolitical definition isn't ideal, though it is readily cited, I disbelieve and reject this(YOUR) delineation without cited basis -- as with South/North America, this is what YOU believe the border should be.  In this instance, I defer to the Columbia Gazetteer of the World, a reputable, authoritative source for a description of Oceania (actually an online sister publication, but this is verbatim from the Gazetteer):


 * collective name for the approximately 25,000 islands of the Pacific, usually excluding such nontropical areas as the Ryukyu and Aleutian islands and Japan, as well as Taiwan, Indonesia, and the Philippines, whose populations are more closely related to mainland Asia. Oceania is generally considered synonomous with the South Sea Islands and is divided ethnologically into Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.


 * As well, note the entry for Melanesia in Britannica Ready Reference:


 * A subdivision of Oceania, it includes New Guinea, Admiralty Islands, Bismarck and Louisiade archipelagoes, Solomon Islands, Santa Cruz Islands, New Caledonia and the Loyalty Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, Norfolk Island and numerous others.


 * Note the general exclusion of Indonesia, which leads to the Gazetteer's entry for East Timor (nee Indonesia) (emphasis added}:


 * East Timor ... [occupies] the E half of the island of Timor and the enclave of Oecussi in the W, one of the Lesser Sundas, in SE Asia; 08°50'S 126°00'E.


 * In support of the above, I have edited the tables to include what are usually reckoned in Australasia/Oceania: New Guinea and Maluku islands, excluding East/Timor as cited.


 * There. And I do not refuse to discuss my edits: I refuse to discuss them with YOU given your ignorance of my requests to provide authoritative sources and repetition of rhetoric.  And until you do, I will defer to cited matter and, if necessary, revoke/revert your edits. 142.150.134.50 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here. You again push for political delinations of the continental tables. You just give some lists of islands and say "that's it". This is not supported by any non-political source or definition of the demarcation line. Alinor 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, what are you talking about? I am citing relevant text from reputable publications.  Throughout, YOU HAVE NOT provided reliable sources to support your edit warring (e.g., provide one source supporting the Wallace Line as an authoritative delimiter) -- the tables are not organised by true physical/physiographic lines but what you believe they are ... and I suspect you cannot debate because you are either unwilling or unable to.  At this point, verifiability and citing sources are key.  I have done that.  Stop gibbering repeatedly, provide reliable sources yourself, and desist.  I will not reply to you further unless necessary and revert any of your edits that are not derived through consensus, discussion, or reliable sources. 142.150.134.61 15:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources that you provide ARE NOT RELATED to our disagreement. The data from your sources IS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED IN THE ARTICLE.Alinor 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Un-un -- I defer to my prior comments. 142.150.134.61 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oceanica
Who uses this term? I think it was used in the 19th century, and it may be the correct name for the region in some languages, but in English it seems rather obscure. A Google search for "Oceanica" restricted to English language sites showed mainly commercial sites, not references to the region, some antique maps, and some dictionary entries saying it was a synonym. My feeling is that it should not get equal billing with "Oceania" in the first paragraph.-gadfium 23:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello! I added this to the lead based on this entry in The Columbia Encyclopedia.  I think it is still a legitimate entitlement; however, I will edit the lead to reflect the predominance of the familiar term. Cogito ergo sumo 03:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd seen that article, and considered it as essentially a dictionary entry. I'm satisfied with the change you made to the lead.-gadfium 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Great -- thanks! Cogito ergo sumo 03:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)