Jump to content

Talk:Oceania/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Indonesia

The ONLY part of Indonesia that should be included in Oceania is the island of New Guinea and its continental shelf. Adding in the Maluku Islands, which by the way is now cut in half into North Maluku and Maluku, complicates things. If needed, Indonesia's information here is steadily growing, with its provinces divided into kabupaten (regencies), and its regencies into kecamatan (districts). We should use that information to get a better picture. Doseiai2 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Maps for continents - proposal

Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example:

I'd like to try and standardise maps across the following articles: Americas, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania (and also, ideally, Arctic and Antarctica. My preference is for the orthographic projection currently used at Europe because:

  • It's an SVG instead of a PNG, so can be scaled easily.
  • New maps can be relatively created from existing SVGs (i.e. Europe's map - or the other SVG maps visible at File:Europe (orthographic projection).svg - can be recycled).
  • As an orthographic projection it allows the maps to be centred on the relevant continent or territory.

Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop (unless, of course, anyone volunteers beforehand!) However, before doing that I do want to check that there is consensus for this at each article affected. Additionally, I'm posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to increase the exposure - I'd rather find out if this is a stupid idea before I start requesting new images ;-)

Personally I think it would be good if the Arctic and Antarctic maps were consistent with the continent maps. I realise that the poles may have different requirements, however.

This proposal is quite a radical proposal, affecting many articles, and deals with areas I don't normally edit in. I'm therefore prepared to be slapped down if I'm stepping on toes!

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Two navbars reverted

Editor Gadfium: The following templates, {{English dialects by continent}} and {{English official language clickable map}}, were added earlier to all the continents excluding Antarctica. Why is Oceania the only continental area that is not allowed to benefit from these two extremely useful and highly relevant Navbars? If you'll give them more than a glance, you'll find, for example, that the map template shows the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Australia, New Zealand, Palau, Nauru all as showing English as one of their official languages with a significant population of English speakers, as well as Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea showing English as their official language but with only a small number of English speakers. In addition, that template shows readers where other anglophone states are, so both that template and the "English dialects by continent" template are excellent focusing tools for general readers of this encyclopedia. I'm here on the talk page because I abhor edit wars. However I truly believe in the validity of these templates and their definite relevancy to the articles in which I have posted them.

Unless you can come up with a much better reason than "irrelevant", which just isn't true, then I do want to reinstate these highly useful Navbars!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  15:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

English is not the only language spoken in Oceania. Unless we also have a similar template for Spanish and French, this would appear to be selective information. Since as you say such templates apply to every continent. they appear to be bloat, and so I will remove them from all continents. Thank you for pointing this out.-gadfium 19:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove them if you must, that is certainly your preogative; however, no other editor seems to mind the new Navbars added to the other continent pages. I suggest you ask yourself why you are the only editor who wants to remove these Navbars from articles. All the other involved editors either agree with me and support their inclusion or are acquiescent and don't have strong feelings either way. Why are you the only one?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • PS. Nobody would challenge your point about Spanish and French and other languages. But don't you think there are readers out there who might be interested in the present spread of English throughout the globe? As difficult as it is to learn (right up there with Russian and German) English is still managing to be spoken in more and more places. And many of the new English speakers are learning to handle the English alphabet and reading the language better and better. In any case, this is the English Wikipedia. How do you know there aren't already such Navbars on the French and Spanish Wikipedias?
This is the English Wikipedia, but that gives it no special privilege with regard to the coverage of the English language vs other languages.
Any navigational template should link an article to other articles on closely related topics. Oceania is a continent (or geopolitical region). It should be, and is, linked to other continents. However it is not a language and such language templates are not relevant.
According to Wikipedia:Navigation templates, a "navigation template, navbox or topicbox is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." How is Cameroon English related to Oceania?-gadfium 01:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Gadfium, by pointing out that this is the English Wikipedia, I was merely alluding to the fact that there are other Wikipedia's in other languages. I would have thought that my question about the Spanish and French navbars would have made this apparent. There was no bias intended and I am sorry if you thought so. As a member of the WikiProject countering systemic bias, including language bias, I hope you will accept that my motive was merely to show that the Navbars that you suggested ought to exist might actually already be in place.
Oceania is indeed a continent in its own right. It is, however, so much more than just a geopolitical region. It is a continent of people, and people speak, write and read. They communicate. The closely and strongly related topic of anglophone states and the perhaps more politically defined "anglosphere" bring together both those states where English is an official language and there are a significant number of speakers, such as the Marshalls and Micronesias, and those states where English is an official language and yet there are but relatively few who understand English, such as the Solomons and Fiji. This makes the Navbars highly relevant.
Cameroon in West Africa is a country where English is an official language, just like all the states in Oceania that are either dark blue or light blue on the map. It is also a state where relatively few people speak and understand English, just like in Papua New Guinea and the other light blue areas in Oceania. I'm surprised you didn't get that important relationship without my aid. These are very valid and relevant navigational aids, and readers of the Oceania article really ought to have access to them when they finish reading this article.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You still haven't explained why we should link to English speaking countries but not French or Spanish speaking ones. Saying that there are French and Spanish Wikipedias is missing the point. There are also Chinese-speaking people, etc, although as far as I am aware Chinese is not an official language of any territory in Oceania.
Readers of Oceania are not particularly likely to be interested in Cameroon English, any more than they might be interested in a bird species that occurs only in Newfoundland, even though there are also bird species in Oceania. Is there a difference between the templates on English-speaking countries and a hypothetical template listing bird species by continent? I'm sure you are not suggesting that we link to every article that has something in common with something that occurs somewhere in Oceania, but this appears to be where your logic leads.-gadfium 04:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If we're on the subject of logic, I find it fallacious to simply dispose of a navigation bar on the grounds that not all languages of relevance are represented. If we followed that logic on wikipedia - that all facets must be represented equally or not at all - we'd obviously run into the problem that either we'd have no articles at all or that we'd require someone with god-like writing speed. Either way, personally, I see such a nav-bar as helpful and not a hindrance. If Oceanic people disagree with this notion, I encourage them to speak up and disprove its utility ;). -User talk:Anonymous 5:31am, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(out). I will not get into it with you about linking to English and not others, for the argument smacks of bias, except to say that one has to start somewhere. Instead of depriving readers of useful and relevant information, maybe you should be looking into how you can provide the information you think is necessary to balance things out.

You have NO idea what readers of Oceania are particularly likely to be interested in. How could you? People's interests vary far and wide. You sound like you're judging a whole lot of people whom you don't even know based upon your own apparently myopic views about what they should or shouldn't like. My logic leads toward improving this encyclopedia for readers all over the world. When I'm wrong, I am not afraid to admit it. However in this case I feel very strongly that I am correct, and that it is you who are wrong. You seem to be raising red herring arguments and searching for more. Getting back to basics, this is a highly relevant template, and it's very sad that you feel you must deprive the many and varied readers of this and the other continental articles of educational information.

I'm done here except to say that you missed a continental article, Anglo-America, which you could have easily found had you opened the clickable map template. But you seem to rather close your eyes to good solid knowledge and information. Best of everything to you and yours!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  07:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  • PS. Something for you to read, or reread as the case may be. If you cannot fathom the great importance of the Anglophone states template to the spread of the English language, the expansion of the Internet and the growth of Wikipedia, then you just might need to add that to your personal list of challenges.

samoan house of worship

The Samoan Bahá'í House of Worship in Tiapapata, 8 km from Apia, Samoa, was completed in 1984 making it the 1st house of worship on an Oceanian island off mainland Australia. Considering there are only 7 Baha'i houses accross the world, i think it would be appropriate to demonstrate 1 of these on this Oceania article as a picture. Even though i agree Baha'i is a fringe religion, it has consistently been at the top of fastest growing religion statistics and also ranks as the 2nd or 3rd largest religion on many Oceanian islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanttoeditthissh (talk • contribs) 10:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: until 2007 the Samoan head of state was a Bahá'í convert.
However, there's currently very little in the "Religion" section, and the only image is of the Samoan Bahá'í House of Worship. I'd suggest this does give undue weight to Bahá'í at the expense of other faiths. In particular, I'm concerned that the text doesn't cover Bahá'í at all.
I'd suggest expanding the section, noting that Christianity in all its forms is dominant, but that there are a wide-range of religious beliefs. Bahá'í, Malietoa Tanumafili's conversion, and the Samoan Bahá'í House of Worship could be used to demonstrate the scope of faith in Oceania.
I'd also suggest trying to get a few Christian images - as a Kiwi I'm biased but I'd suggest that images of Rātana churches might be good, but other images too.
This is pretty much a "drive-by" comment, but I have this article (and its talk page) watchlisted, so if I can help do let me know.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 11:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the three photos of temples (two Bahá'í, two in Australia) that were initially added, because they seemed to make our coverage skewed very disproportionately away from more mainstream religions (and irreligion), and probably put too much emphasis on Australia. I would not object to the reinserted Samoan Bahá'í photo staying if the Religion section is expanded somewhat, with some mention of Oceanian Bahá'í followers, and preferably also including a more "mainstream" house of worship. As it stands, I think this photo's relevance is unclear and it may give the Bahá'í faith undue weight, but I won't delete it again just yet. It is a nice photo, and I agree that it could help illustrate the diversity of faiths in the region, especially alongside some explanatory text along the lines suggested above. --Avenue (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much agree fully. I take your point about "mainstream" houses of worship: my thinking is/was that "quirky images" are interesting - a beautifully carved Rātana church would be more interesting than a plain Anglican church in Ponsonby, for example. Thinking it through further, though, you're quite right - the "quirky" images should supplement the "mainstream" images. TFOWRpropaganda 11:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly good to pique the reader's interest, and quirky images are one way to do that. I think distinctive yet reasonably representative images are even more useful, if we can find them. A homegrown minority religion like Ratana would be more informative than an import, I think, although I'm wary of Australian and New Zealand content tending to smother other aspects of the topic. --Avenue (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm certainly not wedded to the Rātana idea - and I take your point about too much Kiwi/Aussie stuff ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 12:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Does Bahai religion warrant a (written) mention in the Oceania article? --Merbabu (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe it could do, if it serves as an example of the diversity of faiths in Oceania. I certainly think that without any text, the image should go. As it stands right now it's unclear to ordinary readers why the image is there. TFOWRpropaganda 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There's diversity in faith in any large region - can anyone name a region/continent or even a country that does not have diversity? Surely it's trivial, and thus the pic is irrelevant. In fact, i don't think a symbol of any house of worship is all that useful to the article, even for the large religions. Such buildings exist all over the world. Can anyone suggest why a picture of a house of worship (of any religion) helps readers' understanding of Oceania? --Merbabu (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, the images (if any) should illustrate the text, and in that respect may be useful. An image of a place of worship that appears unusual (to non-Oceanian eyes) could certainly be useful (hence my comment about a beautifully carved church compared to a plain church - it's nothing like the typical church in Glasgow, for example).
That said, I took a look at other large regions: Asia, Europe and North America. Asia has images illustrating two major religions (Buddhism and Islam), Europe simply has a map indicating which religions are predominant in which areas, and North America has no "religion" section at all. I do think it's worth spelling out religious diversity - we can't assume that the reader will know about this - but whether or not we supplement this with images isn't quite so clear-cut.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 13:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think photos can be useful to illustrate the text, as TFOWR says, when they are fairly distinctive to the region. Maybe a locally decorated church would work well here, or maybe churchgoers in the local formal attire. I'd also like to include a video of choral hymn singing (e.g. like this, but in a more religious context). But the section needs some expansion before more than one item will fit. --Avenue (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This and this may be useful, though I didn't notice any photos that matched our requirements (except, maybe, this one (anyone more familiar with Tonga than me care to comment on how representative this picture is? My experience of Tonga is all within NZ...) I've not gone much further in Commons; Fiji, PNG, the Solomons and Vanuatu were going to be my next port of call, if anyone fancies taking a look at Micronesia and the (large) part of Polynesia I've thus far ignored?
Regardless, I agree that the first step is to expand the text.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 16:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Demographics heading

Aloha! I added a Demographics heading for the redirect page Demographics of Oceania, as requested on "Special:WantedPages". Retrieved September 28, 2010. Peaceray (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Map

We've gotten into a revert war between a map of all of Oceania (Malay Archipelago thru Polynesia) and a map of the Australasian part of Oceania (Melanesia, Australia, & New Zealand). Personally, I think that an article on Oceania should be headed by a map of the entire region, and that maps of Australasia should be placed in that article, or given here with a description of being a narrower conception of Oceania. Another map to have would be the UN conception of Oceania, which matches neither map, including as in does Hawaii (currently excluded) and excluding West Papua (currently included).

The argument for limiting the map to Australasia is that this has been stable for years, but that is not a valid argument for retaining inaccuracies. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument you appear to be making is that the Malay archipelago should be added to the territories we currently list as part of Oceania. It would be preferable if you put forward your reasons for this, rather than simply asserting that the map should cover it.-gadfium 02:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That's the broad definition of the term, as look can find by checking a dictionary or doing a search online for the hundreds of books which use the term that way. There's a narrow conception of Oceania that excludes Australia and perhaps New Guinea, a middling conception that includes them, and a broad conception that includes the Malay Archipelago. There's the UN geopolitical modification that follows current national boundaries. The EB mentions that even Japan might be included as part of the Pacific, but I've never seen a definition that broad in actual use. The current map is identical to Australasia: it doesn't even include not-Australasian Polynesia, and so fits no-one's conception of Oceanic. It's simply wrong. Since we have different articles on Oceania and Australasia, I would think our maps should distinguish them. To be complete, we should probably have four maps: narrow, middling, broad, and geopolitical, plus perhaps ecozone and others. But if we have only one, it should be the full extent of the region, not a subset that happens to be synonymous with a different article. — kwami (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the article should adopt the broad definition of the term? If so, please actually put some arguments forward. At the moment, you appear to be arguing that neither map is perfect, which I entirely agree with. However, both maps fail because they don't display the full area of Oceania, which extends over the horizon to the east. The actual territories of Oceania are mostly too small to appear on the maps. Adding territories which are not part of the definition of Oceania as actually used in the article does not help at all.-gadfium 05:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing that we should cover the various uses of the term, both those that include the Malay arch. and those which exclude Australia. We could have multiple maps, but IMO a general map should include all the areas included in the region, not just a particular narrower conception. — kwami (talk)

Recent sources that include the Malay archipelago as part of Oceania

Here are some sources which include the Malay arch. Most, but not all, also include Australia. (There are also many sources which exclude both.)

  • OED (2008): (A collective name for) the islands and island-groups of the Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas, including Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia, and sometimes also Australasia and the Malay archipelago.
  • Merriam-Webster (1996): the lands of the cen & S Pacific including Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia (including New Zealand), often Australia, & sometimes the Malay Archipelago.
  • EB (2010): The term, in its widest sense, embraces the entire insular region between Asia and the Americas. [I can find no such usage.] A more common definition excludes the Ryukyu, Kuril, and Aleutian islands and the Japan archipelago. The most popular usage delimits Oceania further by eliminating Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Philippines ... Oceania then, in its most restricted meaning, includes more than 10,000 islands, with a total land area (excluding Australia, but including Papua New Guinea and New Zealand) of approximately 317,700 square miles (822,800 square km).

So the EB excludes Australia as well as the Malay arch. from the land area, but there are reasons (below) to think this is not a RS.

  • Douglas & Ballard (2008) Foreign bodies: Oceania and the science of race 1750-1940: They "recuperate" the term and apply it to Indonesia-Hawaii-Australia-New Zealand-Easter Island, and cover the history of the term. Its coinage as the "Fifth part of the World" included Bornea, Indonesia, Timor, Singapore, Philippines, New Guinea, Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia, and specifically excluded Japan, Formosa, Luchus, Aleutians, pace the EB. They note that "By the 1970s ... in French, Océanie had contracted in conformity with the international geopolitical norm that puts the Malay Archipelago in Asia and divides Asia from Oceania along the arbitrary colonial border which cuts the island of New Guinea in two."

We cover both the regional and the geopolitical conceptions noted in Douglas & Ballard, but neither are illustrated by our map: at the least we would need to include Polynesia and exclude Indonesian Papua. I would exclude the EB as an outlier I've been unable to verify even with this very detailed history. (We don't use encyclopedias as sources anyway.)

  • The Diagram Group (2006) Environment: An Illustrated Guide to Science, p 18: "Oceania comprises the islands of the southern, western, and central Pacific Ocean including Australia, New Zealand, and the Malay Archipelago."
  • Luck (1998) The American desk encyclopedia: It includes the islands of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia and, sometimes, Australasia ... and the Malay Archipelago.
  • Kerr (2003) Tourism public policy, and the strategic management of failure, p 64: "Oceania refers imprecisely to the lands of the Pacific Ocean such as Australia; New Zealand; the Malay Archipelago; Micronesia; Polynesia; Melanesia; New Guinea; and Papua New guinea"
  • Pendergast & Hermsen (2004) Fashion, costume, and culture: clothing, headwear, body decorations, and footwear through the ages, v 2, p 333: "To most geographers the lands that make up Oceania include Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia, New Zealand, and often Australia and the Malay Archipelago."
  • Bulkeley (2008), "Religions of Oceania", in Dreaming in the world's religions: a comparative history, NYU, p 233: The nineteenth-century French term "Oceania" ... is a collective noun denoting the kindred cultures of Australia, New Guinea, the Malay Archipelago, New Zealand, and the hundreds of Pacific islands ...

The broad conception is used in some surprising places, such as,

  • Leibs (2004) Sports and games of the Renaissance p 173: "Oceania refers to the myriad of islands ... in the central and southern Pacific Ocean, ranging roughly from Australia to Hawaii, including the Malay Archipelago, Melanesia, Micronesia, New Zealand, and Polynesia."
  • McEvoy (1988) Knife & tomahawk throwing: the art of the experts, p 139: Oceania, the islands of ... Australasia, Polynesia, and the Malay archipelago, were all peopled with hunters and warriors who used spear-throwers of various types.
  • DP Sen (2005) Advances in Fish Processing Technology, p 631: "In Asia (Japan and China) and Oceania (Malay archipelago), several species [of seaweed] are eaten raw"

The last was published in India, and so might be expected to have a clear idea as to what "Asia" is.

It's not even the case that Australia is always included when the Malay arch. is. In Blackwood William and Sons' Fifth Geographical Reader, Standard VI (can't find a date, but old), "Oceania" is the Malay arch, Melanesia (New Guinea, Fiji, etc. but not Australia), Micronesia, & Polynesia. The islands are commonly defined to include up to the Bonins in the N.

Australasia, BTW, is commonly defined to be almost exactly what we have on our map: Australia, Melanesia, & New Zealand, with the only difference being the common inclusion of the Moluccas / Wallacea in Melanesia and Australasia. — kwami (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the article then needs to be expanded, especially the interpretation section, before all the map debate. I think the common interpretation of Australia+Pacific w/o Malay archipelago is due to atlases using Oceania as a 7th continent I reckon. That's personally how I've always seen it. If the sources elaborate on this definition, and why, that'd be useful. For now more acknowledgement and explanation would be useful.
In regards to the map, maybe if we shift the current globe northeast, showing the pacific with australasia in the southwest? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, these descriptions all seem to consider Oceania a geographic region rather than a continent; the continent tends to be Australia or Australasia. The geopolitical conception is the most common when fitting this into political boundaries, as in atlases & the UN. Most of our article is about geopolitical Oceania, but the current map is not. We should at least have a map that matches one of the two. — kwami (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Douglas & Ballard (2008) also acknowledge the typically more limited scope of the term in English (i.e. excluding the Malay archipelago and Australasia). Here is a link to the most relevant section: Naming spaces. I think our map should also distinguish between "core" and "broad" definitions of Oceania, e.g. by showing them in two different shades of green. --Avenue (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we mention that. I don't know if it would be very easy to make a bicolored map, since much of the core area is too fine grained to show up, but we could try. (I'll have to read them again, but I assume they only remove continental Australasia, not things like Fiji.) — kwami (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Both of the two maps that have been tried are far from ideal. They are centred over mid-Australia, so Hawaii is perched on the edge of the globe, and I'm not sure if Easter Island is even visible. India is given much more prominence. And the maps do not show small islands well (or at all?), which is a big defect for this region. I think a better map would be centred around the intersection of the date line and the equator, or a bit to its west, and would show EEZ outlines as well as coastlines. --Avenue (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, apart from Hawaii, they don't show Polynesia or Micronesia at all. Impossible, really, given the scale of the maps. I added the EEZ map back in to at least outline where they are. — kwami (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced the map of Australasia and South East Asia with one that shows the full extent of Oceania. It would be nice to find a map in a similar style to the previous one, but it seems everyone agrees that a map centred on Australasia and omitting much of the area of Polynesia is inappropriate.-gadfium 18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Except that that wasn't the full extent of Oceania. I moved it to the top of the page and labeled it 'Pacific Ocean'. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Aleutian Islands

Aleutian Islands are not the americas oceania that term is used or is not correct ecjo to hawaii geographically belong to the americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.178.214 (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to understand what you mean here. The article explains that the Aleutian Islands are not normally considered as part of Oceania, except by the very broadest definition. They do not share cultural origins or ecology with the rest of Oceania. Hawaii is certainly part of Oceania, as it is a part of Polynesia. This is not a denial that it is a part of the United States, but it is not part of the continent or continents of America.-gadfium 19:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thanks cleared my doubts but for me hawaii america should be, not what oceania both politically and geographically is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.178.214 (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mauritius?

Is it possible to consider Mauritius a oceanian country? Geographically, it looks like its within the range of oceanian countries, since it sits in the middle of the indian ocean. Wikipedia suggests here that its an african country but i would disagree, since its not near Africa. Someone65 (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oceania is the land beyond Southeast Asia. The furthest west it goes in any conception I've seen is Sumatra. The one exception was a very old source that included Madagascar, but that was because the people came from Borneo, which is in Oceania, not because of the geography. — kwami (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Interpretive details

has been changed to

  • The term, in its widest sense, embraces the entire insular region between Asia and the Americas. A more common definition excludes the Ryukyu, Kuril, Aleutian islands and the Japanese Archipelago.

multiple times. This is pointless. The whole reason that bullet point was there was to describe the widest definition. Of course a more common definition excludes them, thus the entire point of placing it in an Interpretative details and controversies section. The common definition is the one used in the demographics section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the "entire insular region between Asia" mentioned in the first example?Moriori (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It should say and the Americas, sorry, don't know why that's out. That sentence is directly taken from britannica, and the IP is actually making it a complete COPYVIO. I've rewritten. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Aleutian islands, the Japanese archipelago

in the British dictionary says that these islands are excluded but included taiwan if you put the opposite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.47.215 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The term, in its widest sense, embraces the entire insular region between Asia and the Americas. A more common definition excludes the Ryukyu, Kuril, Aleutian islands and the Japanese Archipelago. from the Encyclopædia Britannica
  • The widest definition of Oceania covers the entire region between continental Asia and the Americas, thereby including islands in the Pacific Rim such as the Japanese Archipelago, Taiwan, and the Aleutian islands????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanediaz (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
is wrong then place what it actually says the Encyclopedia Britannica please .... it is unclear what it says there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.242.174 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
We can't exactly copy what is in Britannica as it would be a copyright violation. As it stands that bullet addresses the wider view. I've moved it, if that helps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
but does not specify the Encyclopædia Britannica that these islands are included, just says they are all islands between Asia and the Americas so the rest did not because it is wrong to put —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.242.174 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
is more consistent and understandable so please dejalo.The WIDESTAR definition of Entire Oceania region covers the continental entre Asia and the Americas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanediaz (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify/explain? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
on a map of the great oceania lack taiwan because it also incorporates the continent place it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanediaz (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Taiwan is usually in Asia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The term, in its widest sense, embraces the entire insular region between Asia and the Americas. A more common definition excludes the Ryukyu, Kuril, and Aleutian islands and the Japan archipelago. The most popular usage delimits Oceania further by eliminating Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Philippines, because the peoples and cultures of those islands are more closely related historically to the Asian mainland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.244.203 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Many definitions are discussed in the beginning of the article, and the sections after this focus on that most common definition you mention above. This obsession to try and make one bullet point show this entire point is unproductive and detrimental. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

I have read and wrote the word "Oceania" many times, but I've rarely heard it spoken. For when I was at school the term mostly used there was "Australasia". I can imagine more than one logical way "Oceania" could be prounounced, could someone add the correct pronunciation(s) to the article. Or alternatively, if you're not sure how to add pronunciations, tell me here and I could add it my self. Thank you please. Carlwev (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I dug out my dictionary and found the entry myself, added and cited it. Might do it for more articles too/ Carlwev (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Stupid

If New Zealand isn't part of the "continent" of Australia, then what continent is it a part of? Oceania. Of course. Oceania is the continent. 128.210.12.36 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't part of any continent. There seems to be a misconception that every piece of land has to be part of a continent, but this isn't true. There are many island nations that aren't part of a continent. Adding New Zealand to the continent of Australia (or Australasia) is unnecessary. It would make sense to do so if NZ was on the continental shelf of Australia, as New Guinea is, but NZ isn't on the continental shelf. So then you may wonder, what is NZ? Simple. NZ is the dry-land portion of the submerged Microcontinent of Zealandia. Oceania is a geopolitical region, not a true continent, as it doesn't comprise a unified landmass (which is how geologists describe a continent). Although Wikipedia should include that some people in various countries (especially in Europe) consider Oceania a continent, but note that this is not the most widely held definition, but merely a subjective and ambiguous identification. Walterego (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Its suppoesed to be called Australasia and Ocenia Dance-pop (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC).
I realize this is old... but exactly what is the source that claims that Oceania not being a continent is the most popular notion? Is that from the point of view of a citizen of the United States? Because in Latin America they teach that Oceania is the continent. Apparently this is also the truth for Europe. I've no idea of how they teach it in africa, middle eastern countries, asia, or on Oceania itself, but surely a neutral source exists for the statement that Australian continent, and not Oceania, is the correct term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.167.84.253 (talk)
It is the point of view of most English language sources. In Latin America, they speak Spanish or Portuguese so what is taught there isn't really relevant for determining what the primary notion of the continents is for an English language website such as this. There is no problem with mentioning the South American and European models, but the definitions most commonly used in the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, etc (countries that are primarily native English speaking) should come first with the others presented as alternatives. In other words, I won't try to tell you how to name and describe things in Spanish/Portuguese if you won't try to tell me how to do it in English.--Khajidha (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarify Oceania v Australasia

In simple terms, should Australia and New Zealand not be included in the region Oceania, this being confined to the islands of the south pacific {possibly excluding Hawaii)? Despite previous vagaries Australia and New Zealand13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)~~ are surely included in the larger region of Australasia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.13.140 (talk)

I'm not sure exactly what you're advocating, but our article already covers definitions of Oceania that both include and exclude Australia and New Zealand. --Avenue (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the map wrong?

Is the map wrong? The article says Australasia is a "part" of Oceania, but I don't think it makes it clear what the difference is. The map of Oceania on this page has only half the island of New Guineau, PNG, but the Australasia page includes all of it. Which is right?

Seems to me there's a great deal of confusion about what's what. I wonder if there's even any point having two articles about the same thing, since as far as I'm aware Australasia and Oceania are used interchangeably.5.69.198.16 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, Australasia has one of two similar meanings: 1) it is used as a shorthand for the countries of Australia and New Zealand acting as a unit, as happened in the past in some sports or 2) it is used as a subregion within Oceania (in its broadest meaning) containing the two previously mentioned countries (and occasionally Papua New Guinea) in contrast to the common subregions Polynesia, Micronesia and Melanesia. In this second sense it is sometimes referred to as "Meganesia" ("big islands") and may include the entire island of New Guinea. --Khajidha (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Other uses?

Oceania has an entirely different meaning in Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four - a political region: "Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are the three fictional superstates in George Orwell's futuristic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four." The novel states "Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia and the Southern portion of Africa."

Worth mentioning, but I'm not sure where. --Chriswaterguy talk 23:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Such different meanings are covered at Oceania (disambiguation), which is linked to at the top of the article.-gadfium 23:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Melanesia

"Oceania was originally conceived as the lands of the Pacific Ocean, stretching from the Strait of Malacca to the coast of the Americas. It comprised four regions: Polynesia, Micronesia, Malaysia (now called the Malay Archipelago), and Melanesia (now called Australasia).[1]" Can someone check the original source, as I have never seen Melanesia and Australasia equated like that. --Khajidha (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oceania

Oceanina does not incloud Hawaii! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.23.223 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of Indonisa is in Oceania The end part of Indonisa is in Oceania! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.23.223 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Internal and external dependencies

I saw this edit yesterday by User:Rwebebv. I see the point, but didn't think the edit was exactly correct because the same argument could be made for United States inclusion regarding Hawaii. So I made this edit today, but I still don't know for sure if I got it right. Why is the dependency list divided into "internal" and "external"? What's the difference? The list linked List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania#Other territories doesn't clarify unless I'm missing something. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The term dependency refers to a territory which is not considered to be part of state. West Papua and Papua are both Provinces of Indonesia and therefore integral parts of Indonesia, and therefore should be listed as a state. It is correct that the exact same argument could be made for Hawaii, though I believe there is some debate as to whether it is located in Oceania. The terms internal and external in relation to dependencies is not supported by evidence. My best guess would be that a distinction is being made between territories which are considered entities in their own right (and therefore are external to their possessing state, such as American Samoa) and entities which are not administered in their own right (and therefore are part of the internal governance of their possessing state, such as Palmyra Atoll). Of course if this was the intention then some alterations probably need to be made to the list (for example the Ashmore and Cartier Islands could just be removed). Ebonelm (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to have look at all this more later because right now I'm thoroughly confused. I thought I knew what a dependency was. My understanding is consistent with what you've linked and what you've said. But Hawaii is currently listed as an "internal dependency". That can't be unless you include Papua and West Papua. Indonesia is generally regarded as belonging to the continent of Asia. I have never heard of it being considered part of Oceania (Not to say the two are mutually exclusive). Do we include the U.S. as part of Oceania to be consistent? Then there is the list linked by the dependency lists, List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania#Other territories. It lists Papua, West Papua, and Hawaii. I'm ignoring any other suspect entries for the moment for the sake of simplicity, but clearly the lists do need to be gone through and fixed. Personally I think is pretty much a cluster-fuck as it stands now. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 00:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ebonelm: Can you please look at all this again? Hawaii is currently listed as an "internal dependency". If your definition of internal dependency is correct, then Papua and West Papua should absolutely be in that same list with Hawaii, like it is at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania#Other territories. I've been thinking about this for a while. (A)The current revision of this article; (B) the list at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania#Other territories; and (C) your explanation above, are all in conflict with one another. Only one, out of the three (A, B or C) can be correct. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 02:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Indonesia and Philippines

Oh no. it's false information. Indonesia (expect West Papua) and Philippines is Asia continent. it must have been misinformated. Akuindo (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

One (admittedly fairly rare) definition of Oceania includes Indonesia and the Philippines. This viewpoint (and all others) should be covered in this article. Continental limits are not absolute, objective things but are only convenient divisions we have imposed upon the world. --Khajidha (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Oceania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hawaii?

Are Hawaii, and other islands in the North Pacific, part of Oceania? If so would Hawaii be listed as a dependency or a sovereign state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeninventor999 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hawaii is part of Polynesia, and while there are several ways to define Oceania, I think they all include Polynesia. I'm not sure what other islands in the North Pacific you are referring to, but the article specifically excludes the Aleutian Islands. See Oceania#Definitions for more.
Hawaii is listed as a part of the United States.-gadfium 22:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed spurious map

Removed the map with the fake national boundaries. There's a good chance that readers will think that those are the actual boundaries. Added a map with the EEZ boundaries, which give a visible overview of the polities without misleading the reader as much. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oceania is a continent in English-language world

In discussing with many native speakers, mostly British or American, but even Australian people, all educated in Oxford University, I realized Oceania is definitively a common way to refer to the otherwise-called-Australia continent in the modern world.

Of course, in Wikipedia, referencing is the way of demonstrating, so here are some English-language references for Oceania as a continent.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

I think it is now fair to mention both Australia and Oceania in the introduction. What do you think? Adrien16 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ D'Urville, Jules-Sébastien-César Dumont; Isabel Ollivier; Antoine de Biran; Geoffrey Clark. "On the Islands of the Great Ocean". The Journal of Pacific History. 38 (2). Taylor & Francis, Ltd. JSTOR 25169637.
  2. ^ The Times Atlas of the World : 10th Comprehensive Edition (London)
  3. ^ "Philip's E.A.E.P Atlas". 2003. p. 79.
  4. ^ Scholastic Atlas of the World. 2003. "Oceania is the smallest of all the continents"
  5. ^ Chambers Reference Atlas. 2003.
  6. ^ Barnes & Noble Quick Reference World Atlas. 2006.
  7. ^ "Continental statistics of the United Nations". Retrieved 2013-03-15. "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings -- Oceania is listed as a continent."
  8. ^ Harper Collins Concise World Atlas. 2004.
  9. ^ Rand McNally Answer Atlas. 2006.
  10. ^ "Collins maps". "Headers refers to the Oceania as a continent"
  11. ^ "World Atlas". "Australia/Oceania is one of the continents"
  12. ^ The World - Continents, Atlas of Canada
The lead already notes that Oceania is often considered a continent. CMD (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I just insert the references then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrien16 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
There are already too many references for that point, there definitely doesn't need to be more. CMD (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not the policy of Wikipedia to try to decrease the amount of references....Adrien16 (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It is wikipedia policy that everything be verifiable. A single good source does this. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill. CMD (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I did not know that. I've seen a page with 172 citations, it is quiet funny. Adrien16 (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Pages should have many citations, but each point within that page only needs one or two. CMD (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Slight problem. Not all of those explicitly say that they are using Oceania as a continent nor do all of them use Oceania exclusively. For example, the Philip's EAEP source has a map on "Australia and Oceania". I would interpret this as the continent of Australia plus the region of non-continental islands called Oceania. The World Atlas uses "Australia/Oceania" which would probably mean the same thing. And I wouldn't really count the UN as an English language source in the same sense as the Encyclopedia Britannica or the NY Times. Do you have sources from native English speakers that explicitly lists Oceania as a continent (As in "the continents are Asia, Africa.... and Oceania)? Because as a native English speaker I most often come across the term Oceania as a grouping of non-continental islands in the Pacific Ocean, with the continental landmass of Australia sometimes included and sometimes listed alongside it. --Khajidha (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
HERE - it is right for the world atlas. Other references are less ambiguous but you need the paper versions. Here an image for the Scholastic atlas => [1]. It is written explicitly that it is the smallest continent. For the Philip's EAEP source , p79 (see on google books), you have 'food production and population by continent' and Oceania is mentioned as a continent. The Chambers atlas can also be found here [2]: Oceania is compared with the other continents. Harper Collins atlas has divided the world into the different continents and called the last one Oceania, when other atlas called that Australia [3]. You can see in the table of contents of Barnes and Nobles atlas that you have one section for each continent, including Oceania [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrien16 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
But are those books that compare Oceania to the other continents actually using Oceania as a continent and not as a convenient statistical group? I have seen atlases that use Oceania as the section heading, but still put the word Australia on the main land mass using the same font as is used for "Asia", "Europe", etc. This is then listed on the map key as the font used for continental names. The name of the country is printed in a smaller type on these maps so that the word "Australia" appears twice (more if the names of the Australian states are printed on the map as well). Again, for the Times Atlas, are these sections specifically called continents? We have sources already that explicitly list Australia as a continent, you need to show something just as concrete. --Khajidha (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see my last message above. For those ones, I have been careful when selecting them, because I am aware that sometimes, as you said, Oceania is used in the heading and then Australia is mentioned as the continent (Rand McNally Answer Atlas is a mistake and should not been here). In all those atlases, continents are defined as cultural-political constructs, which is the common usage (Europe includes all islands, same for all other continents). The name of Australia continent when seen as a political construct is Oceania. So it does make sense to compare statistics between continents because a continent IS a region according to that definition and that is why do you find Oceania compared with other continents. If you are picky, you can see online at least the unambiguous Scholastic Atlas and unambiguous Philip's EAEP source p79 (links above) Adrien16 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC).
You're still not getting it. Very few of those sources say specifically "Oceania is the name of a continent". That simply isn't a common usage in English. In English it is most common for the continent to be Australia (more or less limited to the same territory as the country). When comparing all countries around the world it is common for English sources to use the REGION Oceania and compare it to the CONTINENTS Europe, Asia, etc. Looking at the sources you listed, virtually all of them use the "Australia and Oceania" (or "Australia/Oceania" construction) or use Oceania as a specifically named REGION (not continent). There are a few that used "Oceania" in a list with "Europe, Asia, etc." You are interpreting those as saying that Oceania is the name of a continent, I am telling you that that is not necessarily a valid assumption. Are these listed items SPECIFICALLY called "Continents"? --Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I understood perfectly and I answered 2 times now: please follow the links and instructions I have provided in the message above that is now beginning by a HERE (you probably go too far in the past) and you will see that Oceania is mentioned as a continent for those 2 first selected references. For the other sources I provided, it is more ambiguous, because all the continents are compared to Oceania - as you said, it does not mention the world 'continent'. However, perhaps you do not think they are referring to the continent but the region because you would not do that. But I do not think a geographer would compare all the continents together and then choose to compare the continents with Oceania if they do not think Oceania is a continent. It would be comparing apples and bananas, a geographical non-sense and a little rude slap for Australia inhabitants.Adrien16 (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Such a comparison is meaningful if they are using the continents not as continents per se but as convenient groupings of countries. Comparing the continent of Australia (with its sole country) to the continent of Africa (with its dozens) makes little sense. Comparing the Oceanian region to an African region (that is basically the same as the African continent) does. As far as your sources go, I was simply trying to put those two with Oceania used as a continent into perspective with the many others that use it differently. --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
You do not know if they use it differently so you cannot put them in perspective. Many atlases chose to use both names Australia and Oceania when they want to compare the continents and still show the region of Oceania that features more countries.Adrien16 (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
well, at least, I'll change some of the ambiguous references for the non-ambiguous ones.Adrien16 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
And I keep the list updated below Adrien16 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Unambiguous references mentioning explicitly Oceania as a continent and that can be checked online

[1] that can be checked here

[2] can be checked here - p79, you have 'food production and population by continent' and Oceania is mentioned as a continent.

[3]that can be checked here. Oceania is listed as a continent in the United Nations geoscheme.

Mate, the first reference links to a kiddy book. In the second one, I couldn't find the passage you mention. In the third link, it explicitly says REGION, rather than continent. In other words, none of those links support your case, and one of them contradicts it. Newzild (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

More ambiguous references that can be checked online

[4] that can be checked here: Oceania is compared directly with the other continents.

[5] that can be checked here. The atlas has divided the world into the different continents and called the last one Oceania, when other atlas called that Australia.

[6] that can be checked here - in the table of contents, you have one section for each continent, including Oceania.

[7] that can be checked here. Headers refers to the Oceania as a continent.

References not available online

[8] [9] [10]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

  1. ^ Scholastic Atlas of the World. 2003. "Oceania is the smallest of all the continents"
  2. ^ "Philip's E.A.E.P Atlas". 2003. p. 79.
  3. ^ "Continental statistics of the United Nations". Retrieved 2013-03-15. "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings"
  4. ^ Chambers Reference Atlas. 2003.
  5. ^ Harper Collins Concise World Atlas. 2004.
  6. ^ Barnes & Noble Quick Reference World Atlas. 2006.
  7. ^ "Collins maps". "Headers refers to the Oceania as a continent"
  8. ^ The Times Atlas of the World : 10th Comprehensive Edition (London)
  9. ^ The Atlas of Canada. Revised Date Modified: August 17, 2004. Accessed on line January 31, 2011.
  10. ^ "Encarta Mexico "Oceanía"". Mx.encarta.msn.com. Archived from the original on 2009-11-01. Retrieved 2009-04-17.
Your first unambiguous reference links to a page saying that "this photo cannot be viewed because it has either been deleted or marked as private by the user." The second unambiguous reference is to a page that I cannot view as "[I] have either reached a page that cannot be displayed, or have reached [my] viewing limit for this book." The third unambiguous reference brings a "page cannot be found" result. Your first two ambiguous references bring up the same page (image 22 of 34) for me. The image I see is actually an unambiguous usage of Oceania as a continent. Your third ambiguous reference lists Oceania as a section, but it doesn't seem to show anything about whether the book considers Oceania a continent or simply a convenient region. The fourth ambiguous reference gives me a "file not found" page. However, your reference to the headers makes me think that you mean the list at the top of the page "Africa · Asia · Europe · North America · Oceania · South America · World". Again, there is no notation that these are continents. You seem to assume that they are because most of the list includes continental names. Clicking on Oceania brings up a list of countries within Oceania. Clicking on Australia brings up a page stating that "Australia, the world’s sixth largest country, occupies the smallest, flattest and driest continent." This seems to indicate that the source considers Australia a continent and Oceania a convenient shorthand for "the continent of Australia along with numerous Pacific islands". As for your unavailable online sources, I won't be able to say much about them. I did check the "World Atlas" link and it shows a very confused usage. In some places it uses the combined form Australia/Oceania and in others simply Oceania. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Quick addition. I just clicked on the footnote for your UN source. That took me to a page concerning "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions". This is fairly unambiguous usage of Oceania as a continent. There is still a slight possibility that continent is being suggested as a convenient shorthand for macro geographical region without it being seen as an exact synonym, but without a statement from the UN to that effect I see no reason to not accept this as a usage of Oceania as a continent. --Khajidha (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what the big deal is here. Doesn't Wikipedia have guidelines for statements/facts that are not agreed on by all sources. Isn't the answer, that some sources say it is a continent, some say it is not a continent, some use the word but do not say whether it is a continent or not. - Clearly the chunk of land that contains most of the country of Australia is a continent/continental landmass, what is considered part of this continent and what is not considered part of this continent are not agreed by everyone, and the proper name of the continent is not agreed on by everyone. Whether islands in the middle of the ocean are part of any continent is not agreed on by everyone. It's not hard to grasp. Same as the exact meaning/scope/coverage of the word itself "Oceania" is not agreed on by all sources, much of this is all ready mentioned in the article anyway. Carlwev (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
arf! I updated the links again...Also not sure why the reflist does not work correctly (#1 is not the times reference...)Adrien16 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oceania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Oceania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oceania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Typo on the map

"Regions of Oceania" map. I think there is a typo, it says Kirabati instead of Kiribati. 188.240.101.132 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Cruickshanks: can you change this and re-upload the map, please?-gadfium 20:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently not - I have tried twice to upload a corrected file but the original spelling keeps showing. The changed spelling is clearly visible on the saved file on my computer, but when uploaded (after modifying, saving and uploading twice) the SVG file still shows old spelling, even after clearing cache and re-rendering page. I don't believe you would consider me to be a novice but I am bamboozled by what the problem is for what should be an ultra-easy task. Cruickshanks (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The old image showed up for me too, even with a purge, but Ctrl-F5 (in Firefox) was enough to show the new one.-gadfium 17:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Oceania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Focus of map

The map focuses on the Australasian part of Oceania, omitting territories such as Hawaii and the Juan Fernández islands off Chile which are specifically mentioned in the text as being part of this continent. It would surely make more geographical - and linguistic - sense if the map centred on the Pacific, with Australasia off to the left. If this were an article on Australasia, that would be another matter. Oceania is essentially a oceanic continent, and I feel the map should reflect this.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Jayapura and Papua island are in Oceania

Before the IP removes them again, please state their reason here. If they do it again, they may also want to remove or edit the maps of Oceania presented in the article. Because the maps do include Jayapura and Papua island. The article must not contradict itself in such a way. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"IP" means "Internet Protocol", or "Inspector Pilot", or "Initial Point". You can't just go around using initialisms and acronyms like "IP" without first explaining what they mean. 47.215.180.7 (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"IP" is commonly used on Wikipedia talk pages, and almost always means a user identified only by their IP address. For example, you are editing from an IP account, User:47.215.180.7, so you would also be referred to as an IP. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Explain first, not months later on, just like ITU means International Telecommunications Union.47.215.180.7 (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It's used so often on Wikipedia talk pages that it is common knowledge, and needs no explanation. If someone doesn't know what it means, they can always ask politely, rather than lecturing. - BilCat (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What? Nothing about "The cities of Oceana"

What? Nothing about "The cities of Oceana".
There are some, such as Agana, Arecibo, Auckland, Bora Bora, Cebu City, Charlotte Amalie, Christchurch, Davao, Dunedin, Efate, Freeport, Funafuti, Georgetown, Grenada, Hilo, Honolulu, Kingston, Koror, Monserrat, Nassau, Papeete, Nelson, Norfolk Island, Port-of-Spain, Port-au-France, Port Moresby, Rabaul, San Juan, St. John, St. Kitts, Stanley, Tenerife, Tonga, Wellington, and so forth.24.121.195.165 (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Main Articles

There are something like 70 main articles listed on this page, including six "Religion", six "Economy", and five "Culture" articles.

The obvious solution is to make new articles at pages like Culture of Oceania with content from the existing main articles. If people support this idea, I may try to do it on Wednesday or Thursday of this week. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that "Oceana" includes islands in the Indian Ocean, such as the Kerguelen Islands, Mauritius, Réunion, and the Seychelles. Furthermore, from the point-of-view of the Olympic Games and others, Oceana includes the Falkland Islands, St. Helena, Ascension Island, the islands of the Caribbean Sea, the Bahamas, and Puerto Rico.47.215.180.7 (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
"Oceania sometimes includes the Caribbean"? [citation needed]. Adam Dent (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Maps

The heavily Australia-centric Infobox map shows the whole of Indonesia as in Oceania. That may indeed have been conceptually so for a short period historically as "Malaysia" but it has not been so for a long time, and is not included in the article beyond brief mention. Indonesia is not covered as such at all, only its provinces on Papua.

That map also shows the whole of Philippines; the text says "part of the Philippine islands" and in another place "non-continental volcanic islands of the Philippines" but none of this is included in the regional map or the article detail (populations, economy, culture etc). It's very confusing to a visiting reader. Davidships (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Bonin Islands

This article states definitively that "The islands at the geographic extremes of Oceania are the Bonin Islands...". However List of transcontinental countries is more equivocal; Japan's Izu islands, Ogasawara (Bonin) islands, and Minami Torishima are occasionally considered Oceanian. Should this article be less definitive about the northern boundary of the continent? --LukeSurl t c 20:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

First, the article is about the region, not the continent. Generally, the extent used in the article is the geopolitical flavor used by the UN. That includes some Japanese islands (the Bonin). There's no particular reason to include other chains closer to Japan as part of Oceania rather than Asia. From a geophysical view, the Izu islands seem to be specifically associated with the Japanese main island continental shelf. Perhaps rephrasing the statement to say something like "for the purposes of this article..."? Tarl N. (discuss) 20:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"the extent used in the article is the geopolitical flavor used by the UN". Do we have a reference for the UN's definition of "Oceania"? I couldn't find one, but it would be nice to have. Given that there seem to be so many definitions of "Oceania", it's probably a good idea to be "less definitive" about its boundaries. I just found the following web page [5], which claims: "Oceania extends to Sumatra, Bonin Island, Hawaiian Island(sic), Rupa(sic) Nui Island, and Macquarie Island. The islands at the geographical ends of the area include Bonin, a territory of Japan, Hawaii, a territory of the US, and Easter Island which belongs to Chile. Also, a relatively smaller geographic area includes Indonesian Papua Guinea on the Australian continent but excludes the land on the Sunda Plate." This is the first time I've seen Macquarie Island mentioned as being part of Oceania, but it probably makes sense, given that Australia (including the island of Tasmania) and New Zealand are considered part of Oceania. (Note, BTW, that our own page currently notes the Campbell Islands (farther north than Macquarie) as being the southern extent of Oceania.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
UN definition - here, click on Geographic regions under the M49 Standard banner and then scroll down a loooong way. It specifies Marshall islands and Northern Mariana Islands, which at one point I thought included the Bonin islands, trying to find that. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Under this UN definition, the Bonin Islands would not be considered part of Oceania, because the Bonin Islands are administratively part of Japan, which is in another UN region (Asia). This illustrates the danger of relying solely upon the UN definition, because that's a political definition, rather than a geographic one. (I note also that the UN definition doesn't include Easter Island either, as that is administratively part of Chile (South America).) Ross Finlayson (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Further - Mariana_Islands, under "pre-history" comments that geographically it's part of the Izu–Bonin–Mariana_Arc. Micronesia, in being described as the northernmost part of Oceania, specifies it includes the North Mariana Islands, but does not list Japan as one of the nations in the geographic region covered, thus it excludes the Bonin Islands. Since Northern Mariana Islands is a national designation, it appears that Bonin islands are not included. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree on the dangers of relying on UN definition. But since this is the description of the region, rather than the continent, we can probably bend to geopolitical realities. My recollection of the Bonin islands being part of Oceania came from a recollection of them being considered part of Micronesia, which probably has shifted around a couple of times in the last half-century. Either way, whatever definition we pick, we should be precise about it, not vague. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we should be precise - about the fact that the definition of "Oceania" is vague, and that there's a distinction between the UN's geopolitical definition (which excludes the Bonin Islands, Easter Island, and Clipperton Island), and other, more geographical-based definitions, that include those islands. Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just edited the article, based on this discussion. Feel free to tweak this. Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I notice also, by the way, that the article lists a precise area "8,525,989 square kilometres" for Oceania, but without giving a reference. It would be nice to know where this figure came from, because that would (presumably) also give us a geographic definition of the region. Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

New timeline article

Created new timeline article 2019 in Oceania. this is partially because we did not have individual timeline articles for some countries, eg 2019 in Samoa, 2019 in Tuvalu, 2019 in East Timor, 2019 in Kiribati, 2019 in the Marshall Islands, 2019 in Nauru, etc etc --Sm8900 (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

I hereby request permission to add information in the lead that acknowledges that in many (mostly non-English speaking) countries in the world, a continental model is taught which includes Oceania and not Australia as a continent. Although this is an English wikipedia, we should acknowledge other views. The hatnote should also be removed as it implies Oceania is not a continent. Also, paradoxically Oceania is currently in the continents category while the hatnote says that is not a continent and only Australia is. Civciv5 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that the fact that Oceania is considered a continent in some continental models need to be explained better in the Lead, and somewhere in the article with sufficient sources. However, we shouldn't turn this article into a continental article. Also, the hatnote shouldn't not be removed in any case, as the purpose of hatnotes is to direct readers to the proper articles in cases of ambiguity, which this most certainly is. The hatnote would be even more necessary if the redirect at Oceania (continent) is redirected here. This is because many articles where Australia as a continent is mentioned are subject to having the links changed to point to this article. - BilCat (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by 'turn this article into a continental article', the article is already in the continents category. I suggest that along with changes to the lead and possibly the article, the hatnote should be changed to something like this to avoid bias: Not to be confused with Australia (continent). For other uses, see Oceania (disambiguation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civciv5 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
A problem with considering Oceania a continent is that Oceania includes (among others) New Zealand. As a matter of physical geography, New Zealand is not part of the Australian continental mass (readily seen by examining seafloor topology). But the larger issue is that the drive to name the continental mass as either Australia or Oceania is essentially political and ideological, and thus cannot have a definitive resolution. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we generally follow conventions chosen in the English-speaking world. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Basically there are people on the world who do not live on a continent they live on oceanic islands. The use of the word continent to encompass regional groupings of countries is not the same thing as a continent even though the terms are often used interchagably - Oceania is a way of conveniently defining such a grouping. The fact that these groupings (except for Oceania and Euro/Asia) are basically the same is the confusing issue. New Zealand is an example of this conundrum - either 2500 kms from a continental landmass (Australia) or arguably on the mostly sunken continent Zealandia Andrewgprout (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
But there is no universally accepted definition of continent, it's commonly defined as one of the large landmasses on Earth, but sometimes it's just a synonym for world divisions. Since there many countries whose educational models teach that Oceania is a continent, it should be at least mentioned in the lead. Something like 'In many non-English speaking countries, Oceania is considered a continent' or something like that. The page should also be re-added to the category 'Continents'. Civciv5 (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the first suggestion, but not the second. Mentioning that many (more likely, "some") non-English speaking countries consider Oceania to be a continent is OK. But the page should not be re-added to the category 'Continents', because it's not considered to be a continent in the English-speaking world (which is the domain of "en.wikipedia.org"). Ross Finlayson (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The pages Zealandia and Indian subcontinent are also in the category continent, though, and they're also not considered one of the main continents in the English-speaking world. Civciv5 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Civciv5 what came out of this discussion? I believe it would enrich Wikipedia to be pointed out that the term Oceania in some cultures regards a region considered a continent (but maybe the concept of continent is a bit different), and that the concept of an Australian continent does not exist
2804:14C:482:72FD:B5F5:2041:915F:A5E1 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

See related discussion at Talk:Oceania (continent) are links therein. fgnievinski (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Australia (continent)

In the sense of "continent", "Australia" is just a confusing term for "Oceania", and I have never seen an atlas which excludes New Zealand from Oceania. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 23:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - English Wikipedia uses the 7-continent model in which Australia is a continent and Oceania is a region which includes most of the islands of the Pacific. - BilCat (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As someone from Oceania but not Australia I can catagorically say that there is no support for the concept that Oceania is ever decribed as a continent. Oceania is the regional grouping of the Country and Continent of Australia plus the islands of the central/south Pacific. The same concepts exist in other groupings but the names are in those cases the same. Borneo is in Asia (grouping) but not part of Continental Asia. Japan same. Ireland is part of Europe, but not part of Continental Europe. Iceland and Madagasgar same (more questionable though because of distance). When it comes to the Pacific the distances from Australia are huge - New Zealand is thousands of km away from Australia, Fiji further, Tahiti even further, the distance to Hawai'i is extreme, in this case the name Oceania for the regional grouping is not the same as the continent (the smallest continent) within that grouping, Australia. The concepts are distinct and cannot be merged. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The model I was taught was that Australia was a continent, the islands of the Pacific (including NZ) are just islands (not part of any continent), and that Oceania was just a convenient grouping. --Khajidha (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Bro, which country are you from? I was taught the opposite, my teacher told me that Australia is just a country in the continent of Oceania. 110.145.30.41 (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Oceania is a region which is used to represent the cultural, and economic connections of several areas, which includes the islands in the area and New Zealand, which is on the (disputed) continent of Zealandia, not the Australian continent (also known as Sahul). Sahul is a major piece of land that is categorized as a continent. It is the continent of Papua New Guinea, Australia, and a part of Indonesia. They're not the same thing. - Emil Sayahi (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You can might as well delete the articles of Asia and Europe, and merge them with Eurasia. Australia is a bona fide, geological continent in itself, just like the other six continents. Oceania, on the other hand, is more of a cultural and social constructed region, with no real or tangible borders, unlike the continent of Australia. Not to mention, the Australian continent has its own distinct wildlife and ecology. It will be a huge and uneducated loss in the geographical department of Wikipedia if the article were deleted/merged. Meganesia (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Off topic, but I could almost get behind the merging of Asia and Europe, as those are not "bona fide, geological continent[s]", but more "cultural and social constructed region[s]". --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - These are two separate things and deserve two separate articles. Australia is a continent and Oceania is a geographic region including the continent of Australia. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that a fully explanation of all the different terminology (Australia, Australasia, Oceania, etc) and the circumstances in which they are used is a great idea. Correct me if I am wrong, please, but the English-language Wikipedia shows global concepts, and global points of view, not only those of the English-speaking Word. Right? Specially because many English-as-a-second-language speakers visit it.
2804:14C:482:72FD:B5F5:2041:915F:A5E1 (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a question of language usage. We write using words as they are used in English by native speakers of English. We can include the fact that other languages characterize things differently, but our general usage must follow English language norms. If these do not match the norms that English-as-a-second-language speakers are familiar with from their own languages, then that would seem to me to just be part of learning the English language. The different names for and different extents of the continents in different languages is no different from the fact that "In Norwegian, hat means hatred but in Hungarian, hat is the numeral 6 (wikt:hat). Which one is the true meaning? Perhaps they are both wrong and the true meaning of hat is a covering for the head?" (Thank you User:jmk for providing this example over on the decade article). --Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

See related discussion at Talk:Oceania (continent) are links therein. fgnievinski (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Two infoboxes for Oceania?

I noticed that someone tried to create and maintain two infoboxes for the Oceania article. One is called "geopolitical Oceania" which contains 14 countries and another one is called "geographic Oceania" which contains 21 countries with the inclusion of additional 5 Southeast Asian countries (Indonesia, East Timor, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines) and 2 New Zealand associated states (Niue and the Cook Islands).

Personally, I think the concept of two Oceanias is very confusing. I have never seen any source stating that Oceania has 21 countries. Oceania is not a controversial region/continent like Antarctica, its geographic extent is pretty well defined and the sources I have seen have all state that Oceania contains 14 independent countries plus a dozen or so overseas territories controlled by other sovereign countries.

Sources:

So, what do your guys think? Should we maintain two infoboxes for Oceania? I have attached my original discussion with this editor as a reference below. 2001:8003:9008:1301:B9F6:33CE:1491:37AB (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Oceania, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Flix11 (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi friend, please have a look at the article, it includes 21 countries in Oceania, which is clearly wrong. Southeast Asia is not a part of Oceania. Every source on the internet states that there are 14 countries in Oceania. I noticed that you are from Indonesia. Would you consider your country an Oceania country? If you do, then why is Indonesia competing in the Asian Games instead of the Pacific Games? I will revert your work unless you can provide a reliable source stating that Oceania consists of 21 countries, not 14 countries. 2001:8003:9008:1301:B9F6:33CE:1491:37AB (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
It is the REGION. Indonesia is a transcontinental country (read List of transcontinental countries), just like Russia (Europe and Asia). Since there are parts of both countries lie on other continents, the countries are not only considered as a whole. If your argument is sporting events they are into, then Israel was once an Asian country, then an OCEANIAN country, and now a European one. Flix11 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This issue is quite complicated, some people consider Oceania as a region, which Australia (continent) is a subregion of it. Some people consider Oceania as a continent, but whether it is a continent or a geographic region, Southeast Asia is not included. I know Indonesia is technically a transcontinental country (which is true), but Indonesia only has two provinces (Papua and West Papua) located in Oceania and it is generally considered an Asian country due to political and cultural reasons. Indonesia not only participates in Asian sports tournaments, they are also part of various Asian organisations across all fields and professions. Similar examples are Egypt (which has a small piece of land in Asia) and the United States (which has one state in Oceania), both countries are generally considered as African and North American countries respectively.
As for Israel and Russia, Israel is an Asian country, their sports teams are forced to play in European competitions due to political reasons. Russia is technically a transcontinental country (Europe and Asia), but the UN classifies it as an Eastern European country due to similar reasons like Indonesia.
Most sources state that Oceania has 14 countries plus a dozen or so territories, including two Indonesian provinces as well as several American, French, British and NZ overseas territories. I think we should stick to these sources. 2001:8003:9008:1301:B9F6:33CE:1491:37AB (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think we shouldn't have a definitive infobox list at all, because (contrary to what you state) I find Oceania to be a very confused, disputed, and controversial concept. Conversely, I fail to see how Antarctica is any of those things. --Khajidha (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that's because you are taught differently. There are no universal standards in geography, if you are taught by your geography teacher that there are 6 or 7 continents in the world and Oceania is not a part of that, then perhaps you will be confused about this term. But for people who got taught that Oceania is a continent or geographic region, then the extent of this region is pretty clear to them. I am not saying those Maritime Southeast Asian countries have always been excluded, but only very very few sources would include them as part of Oceania. I am not an inclusionist, I don't know whether we should make another infobox just to include them, it looks a bit weird to me. 110.145.30.41 (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
That's my point. If there is no general agreement on what Oceania is, we can't really make an infobox for it. Many, if not most or all, of the fields in it would be "it depends". --Khajidha (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The galapagos islands are not part of oceania

The galapagos islands are not part of oceania or polynecia Greends (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Where in the article does it say that The Galapagos islands are part of Oceania or Polynesia? Robynthehode (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

the galapagos islands appear in the table as part of the polynecia and oceania which is wrong it is part of america it is very close to america, greetings Greends (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing any suggestion that the article suggests the Galapagos are included within the definition of Polynesia. Perhaps you could point it out more specificly.Andrewgprout (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In the main table dependencies-internal I do not understand what makes an island of america as part of polynesia-oceania Greends (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

the Juan Fernández islands is not part of polynesia-oceania Greends (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The boundaries of Oceania are not well defined. The Galapagos Islands are 900 kilometres from the South American mainland, which puts them in the Pacific Ocean, rather than being offshore islands. However, they are not part of Polynesia, and the article does not claim they are. Juan Fernández Islands are a similar case. Perhaps you are confusing Oceania and Polynesia? Oceania is much larger. See Oceania#Definitions and extent.
Hawaii is most certainly part of Polynesia because it was populated by Polynesian people long before Europeans sailed into the Pacific.-gadfium 21:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In this case Easter Island has to be in dependence since it is part of Oceania and Polynesia in Wikipedia in Spanish Galapagos Islands do not appear in this topic since it is part of Central America the same as Juan Fernandez Island Greends (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Greends: Ok I think we are talking about this different page [[6]] . And I would encourage you to be WP:BOLD and make the edits you want. I can't see anyone here disagreeing with you on the changes you are suggesting. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There are several ways to distinguish these remote Pacific islands. In political geography, the Galápagos Islands and the Juan Fernández Islands are part of South America. In geology, these two island groups are associated with Oceania rather than South America. Polynesia is a term used in cultural geography. Hawaii, Midway Atoll, Easter Island (Rapa Nui), and Isla Salas y Gómez are part of Polynesia, Clipperton Island is a Polynesian outlier (located outside the Polynesian Triangle but still considered a part of Polynesia), the Galápagos Islands and the Juan Fernández Islands are not part of Polynesia. All countries, dependencies, territories, and possessions in Polynesia (including Polynesian outliers) are also part of Oceania.
Personally, I include the Galápagos Islands and the Juan Fernández Islands in Oceania. N. Mortimer (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Oceania

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Oceania's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "area":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Oceania or Oceanian

If Oceanian is the adjective of Oceania, then why every continental sporting tournament in Oceania is called Oceania Championship instead of Oceanian Championship? I noticed that every other continental sporting tournament uses the adjective form: African Championship, Asian Championship, European Championship and Pan American Championship (Central American Championship, North American Championship and South American Championship).

If not, what is the correct adjective for Oceania? How would we describe someone from Oceania? Oceanian or Oceania guy? 2001:8003:9008:1301:B9F6:33CE:1491:37AB (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It is quite unusual for anybody to use that as a description. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I call the big one bitey

Of the past 50 edits, 44 of them are one user. Could someone please explain to me who User:I call the big one bitey is and what he's doing? Dialmayo (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@I call the big one bitey: to respond.-gadfium 05:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

It seems his trying to just do spam. I will contact the Wikipedia Team about it.

Thank you, Kiera Wikipedia User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11KieraPublisher (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oceania/Archive_4&oldid=1240137919"