![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
All things considered, i reckon that the capital of Tokelau should be Wellington? any pros and cons? moza 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Per the (other) continental articles and pending a groundswell of opposition, I've been bold and nixed the redundant list of territories which is essentially duplicated in the summative table; I've not detailed the political status of the various territories but I might later (this might be too much information for the current table). Perhaps the column concerning population density can be retrofitted to succinctly detail political status instead. Of course, this article (and similar continental/regional articles) can stand for some reorganisation (e.g., re-ordering of sxns) for consistency ... perhaps in a manner similar to the structure of country articles as prescribed in the country wikiproject? Anyhow, there you go!` E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Editor 60.230.211.176 has added tags suggesting Australasia and Oceania be merged. This was proposed before, about six months ago, and the discussion had been gathering comments up until the day before it was archived a month ago. So I think it's worth resurrecting the old discussion. I'll paste it back in below. -- Avenue 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, in order to have the merge discussions at one place, I hv suggested that all discussions about the proposed merge take place here so that continuity is not lost (else, we would end up with discussions on both talkpages - the other talk page being Talk:Australasia making it difficult to follow who is saying what). I believe that the merge is justified because of the following reasons: -
-- Gurubrahma 11:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Very Strong oppose Brian (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the distinction is justified. There are a lot of overlapping spheres within the Pacific, and depending on whether you're talking about colonial history/language/people/climate/sport/politics whatever, the different terms serve to highlight different associations. For example, Australia and New Zealand have a lot in common, but in different contexts New Zealand is more associated with the Pacific Islands, and at other times other groupings are also useful. Anecdotally, I've found Oceania to be the new fangled term (and really only associate it it with soccer and the olympics), with Pacific/Polynesia/Australasia being the terms I'm more familiar with. So I guess that's a belated oppose... Limegreen 10:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
In the Oceania page the listed "1 July 2002" population estimate is listed as 28,159,300 which is roughly 10% of the actual population. As a result the tabulated population totals for Oceania is also correct. I do not know what the actual number should be, but I do know it should be over 200,000,000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.99.166 ( talk • contribs) .
Someone wants to delete Australasia as a heading from the territories table. I've reverted it for now, but it should be discussed here, I guess. Previous discussions have established that some people don't like the term and some do. I don't know of a more neutral term for that region (or any other term at all) and think it's a good idea to have a subdivision in the table. So, discuss, please. It's currently in, why take it out? · rodii · 20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, this issue is apparently spillover from another discussion taking place on the Talk:South America? This particular article uses the four-part Australasia/Micro/Mela/Polynesia division, but anon 142.150.134.50 and User:Alinor seem to be battling it out about using the UN scheme, which (in Oceania) has "Australia and New Zealand" instead. 142.* keeps asking in edit summaries for people to discuss here, but he/she doesn't discuss here. I'm not sure how to go forward on this. · rodii · 12:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
On reflection I am going to change my view given above. I think the heading should be "Australia and New Zealand". The places listed are Australia and New Zealand plus some Australian Territories. The term Australasia is sometimes used to include all the places listed under Melanesia, particularly PNG, so Australasia is inappropriate here. We do clearer need some heading. -- Bduke 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm the anon. :) I agree with you somewhat, R.; this is difficult to address. The UN system uses "Australia and New Zealand" to classify that particular region. I presume that "Australasia" was not chosen due to the varying interpretations of that term (e.g., A + NZ + New Guinea, etc.) ... just as much as the other three regions of Oceania are rather loosely defined too (e.g., inclusion of East Timor). While I'm not wholly resistant to using Australasia for that section (if, for anything, lack of anything better and since some works like Britannics use it to refer to the A-NZ dyad), I'd prefer to use the UN term or to leave it blank since entries below (in that section) clearly indicate one or the other. I hope this makes sense. FWIW: I do like your compromise version, R.
As for the other table entries (e.g., South America), recent similar changes have been wilfully made without any discussion or reasoning as to why the prior versions, which have prevailed for months, are insufficient. In addition, they are unsourced and contestable since most common publications (e.g, atlases) do not corroborate recent changes. Thus, the prior versions should hold and I've nothing more to note on that issue. 142.150.134.65 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is clearly preferable, not only for reasons of simplicity, but above all since the term Australasia, as has thoroughly been established in a previous discussion, is not very viable at all, being some sort of diffuse categorisation regarding the intermediate Pacific regions, with little appeal, as far as the ambition is to maintain a certain conceptual clarity. /Copywriter
Here's another option: move NZ to the Polynesia section, and change the Australasia heading to Australia. This is a much cleaner classification in my opinion. If NZ stays where it is, then I agree with rodii about the heading. -- Avenue 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
We are indeed operating in a geograpically complex domain, although somehow the rather basic and rarely argued distinction between Remote and Near Oceania appears rather robust, in particular when in comes to Near Oceania, by all standards including merely Australia, New Guinea and the Salomon Islands, which makes Remote Oceania the true residual sphere open to alternative interpretations and categorisations. I don't know whether a stronger focus on this overall division of the Oceanian territories might to some extent make the somehow hard-to-solve Australasia dilemma superfluous. /Copywriter
The gradually evolving consensus regarding the non-distinct nature of the Australasia geographical category must be welcomed. Apart from the slightly ridiculous, post-colonial character of the name itself, it above all does not add very much clarity when it comes to identifying the relevant sub-sectors of the Pacific map, adequately linking these into world geography. Copywriter, 20 November 2006
Supposedly Australia and New Zealand is the name traditionally having been used to cover the corresponding domains from a political point of view, not only locally, but in Britain as well. Compare for example the party program of the British Labour party from 1950. “We in Great Britain stand - in all respects except for distance - closer to our relatives in Australia and New Zealand far away at the other end of the world than we stand to Europe." Compare also the motivation of the Australian Nobel Prize winner in literature of 1973, Patrick White: “for an epic and psychological narrative art, which has brought a new continent into world literature”. It is not until recently that it has at all been an issue how the territory shall be named, not to discriminate the somewhat smaller countries in the area. The term Australiasia is indeed an attempt to solve the dilemma, however not a very successful one, as seems to have been agreed. /Copywriter February 9th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.231.76.234 ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It would seem unfair, almost strange, to place New Zealand in Polynesia, since Niue and Tokelau are New Zealand dependancies. I understand that New Zealand is a part of Polynesia, but I would think that it would be better to have it seperate, much like Australia is listed. I am talking about the Countries and territories of Oceania, that is displayed at the bottom of somepages, such as the Oceania page, Midway Atoll etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phoenix715 ( talk • contribs) .
In the first lines of the Palau article it is written "...it is traditionally considered to be Melanesian". Also, it looks so by virtue of its location. So, should we put it there? Alinor 06:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
According to the article, Indonesia is part of Oceania, but only half of the islands in the Indonesian Archipelago are highlighted in the world map. Is only half of the nation considered a part of Oceania? Or is the map inaccurate? Orichalcon 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
East Timor is part of Asia, Southeast Asia more specifically, PERIOD! Even while East Timor has cultural and linguistical ties with "Melanesia" it is geographically part of Asia (Southeast Asia) and universally accepted so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.255.230.227 ( talk • contribs) .
· rodii · 13:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The status wikipedia gives to East Timor is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_nation#East_Timor Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.197.75 ( talk) 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I find the table much harder to read now that the countries are called by their formal names, following this edit by 71.99.110.7. I'm tempted to change them back. Any thoughts? -- Avenue 02:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Name of territory, with flag [1] |
Area (km²) |
Population ( 1 July 2002 estimate) |
Population density (per km²) |
Capital |
---|---|---|---|---|
Australasia [2] | ||||
![]() |
7,686,850 | 19,546,792 | 2.5 | Canberra |
![]() |
135 | 474 | 3.5 | The Settlement |
![]() |
14 | 632 | 45.1 | West Island |
![]() |
268,680 | 3,908,037 | 14.5 | Wellington |
![]() |
35 | 1,866 | 53.3 | Kingston |
Melanesia | ||||
![]() |
18,270 | 856,346 | 46.9 | Suva |
![]() |
745,798 | 28,159,300 | 37.8 | Jakarta |
![]() |
19,060 | 207,858 | 10.9 | Nouméa |
![]() |
462,840 | 5,172,033 | 11.2 | Port Moresby |
![]() |
28,450 | 494,786 | 17.4 | Honiara |
![]() |
15,007 | 952,618 | 63.5 | Dili |
![]() |
12,200 | 196,178 | 16.1 | Port Vila |
Micronesia | ||||
![]() |
702 | 135,869 | 193.5 | Palikir |
![]() |
549 | 160,796 | 292.9 | Hagåtña |
![]() |
811 | 96,335 | 118.8 | Bairiki |
![]() |
181 | 73,630 | 406.8 | Majuro |
![]() |
21 | 12,329 | 587.1 | Yaren |
![]() |
477 | 77,311 | 162.1 | Saipan |
![]() |
458 | 19,409 | 42.4 | Koror |
Polynesia [6] | ||||
![]() |
199 | 68,688 | 345.2 | Fagatogo, Utulei [7] |
![]() |
240 | 20,811 | 86.7 | Avarua |
![]() |
4,167 | 257,847 | 61.9 | Papeete |
![]() |
260 | 2,134 | 8.2 | Alofi |
![]() |
47 | 47 | 1.0 | Adamstown |
![]() |
2,944 | 178,631 | 60.7 | Apia |
![]() |
10 | 1,431 | 143.1 | — [8] |
![]() |
748 | 106,137 | 141.9 | Nuku'alofa |
![]() |
26 | 11,146 | 428.7 | Vaiaku |
![]() |
274 | 15,585 | 56.9 | Mata-Utu |
Total | 9,269,453 | 60,735,056 | 6.6 |
Notes:
Name of
region
[1] and territory, with flag |
Area (km²) |
Population ( 1 July 2002 est.) |
Population density (per km²) |
Capital |
---|---|---|---|---|
Central Asia: | ||||
![]() |
2,346,927 | 13,472,593 | 5.7 | Astana |
![]() |
198,500 | 4,822,166 | 24.3 | Bishkek |
![]() |
143,100 | 6,719,567 | 47.0 | Dushanbe |
![]() |
488,100 | 4,688,963 | 9.6 | Ashgabat |
![]() |
447,400 | 25,563,441 | 57.1 | Tashkent |
Eastern Asia: | ||||
![]() |
9,584,492 | 1,315,844,000 | 134.0 | Beijing |
![]() |
1,092 | 7,041,000 | 6,688.0 | — |
![]() |
377,835 | 128,085,000 | 336.1 | Tokyo |
![]() |
25 | 488,144 | 18,473.3 | — |
![]() |
1,565,000 | 2,832,224 | 1.7 | Ulaanbaatar |
![]() |
120,540 | 23,113,019 | 184.4 | Pyongyang |
![]() |
98,480 | 47,817,000 | 490.7 | Seoul |
![]() |
35,980 | 22,548,009 | 626.7 | Taipei |
Eastern Europe: | ||||
![]() |
13,115,200 | 39,129,729 | 3.0 | Moscow |
Northern Africa: | ||||
![]() |
63,556 | 1,378,159 | 21.7 | Cairo |
Southeastern Asia: [9] | ||||
![]() |
5,770 | 350,898 | 60.8 | Bandar Seri Begawan |
![]() |
181,040 | 12,775,324 | 70.6 | Phnom Penh |
![]() |
1,158,645 | 208,176,381 | 179.7 | Jakarta |
![]() |
236,800 | 5,777,180 | 24.4 | Vientiane |
![]() |
329,750 | 22,662,365 | 68.7 | Kuala Lumpur |
![]() |
678,500 | 42,238,224 | 62.3 | Naypyidaw |
![]() |
300,000 | 84,525,639 | 281.8 | Manila |
![]() |
693 | 4,452,732 | 6,425.3 | Singapore |
![]() |
514,000 | 62,354,402 | 121.3 | Bangkok |
![]() |
329,560 | 81,098,416 | 246.1 | Hanoi |
Southern Asia: | ||||
![]() |
647,500 | 29,863,000 | 42.9 | Kabul |
![]() |
144,000 | 141,822,000 | 985 | Dhaka |
![]() |
47,000 | 2,232,291 | 44.6 | Thimphu |
![]() |
3,287,590 | 1,103,371,000 | 318.2 | New Delhi |
![]() |
1,648,195 | 68,467,413 | 40.4 | Tehran |
![]() |
300 | 329,000 | 1,067.2 | Malé |
![]() |
140,800 | 27,133,000 | 183.8 | Kathmandu |
![]() |
803,940 | 163,985,373 | 183.7 | Islamabad |
![]() |
65,610 | 20,743,000 | 298.4 | Colombo |
Western Asia: | ||||
![]() |
33,300 | 3,016,000 | 111.7 | Yerevan |
![]() |
41,370 | 3,479,127 | 84.1 | Baku |
![]() |
665 | 656,397 | 987.1 | Manama |
![]() |
9,250 | 775,927 | 83.9 | Nicosia |
![]() |
363 | 1,203,591 | 3,315.7 | Gaza |
![]() |
20,460 | 2,032,004 | 99.3 | Tbilisi |
![]() |
437,072 | 24,001,816 | 54.9 | Baghdad |
![]() |
20,770 | 6,029,529 | 290.3 | Jerusalem |
![]() |
92,300 | 5,307,470 | 57.5 | Amman |
![]() |
17,820 | 2,111,561 | 118.5 | Kuwait City |
![]() |
10,400 | 3,677,780 | 353.6 | Beirut |
![]() |
5,500 | 365,000 | 66.4 | Nakhichevan City |
![]() |
212,460 | 2,713,462 | 12.8 | Muscat |
![]() |
11,437 | 793,341 | 69.4 | Doha |
![]() |
1,960,582 | 23,513,330 | 12.0 | Riyadh |
![]() |
185,180 | 17,155,814 | 92.6 | Damascus |
![]() |
756,768 | 57,855,068 | 76.5 | Ankara |
![]() |
82,880 | 2,445,989 | 29.5 | Abu Dhabi |
![]() |
5,860 | 2,303,660 | 393.1 | — |
![]() |
527,970 | 18,701,257 | 35.4 | Sanaá |
Total | 43,549,241 | 3,793,712,193 | 87.1 |
Notes:
because of error of appearing/editing notes for both tables are repeated below the second
Alinor 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Please provide authoritative sources that indicate the Wallace Line is or should be used as the delimiter for Asia and Oceania. Of course, I do not question its validity -- since Wallace is so short-changed when it comes to the theory of evolution (sometimes credited with Darwin) -- but the table seems to have been revised as such without discussion nor consensus ... and it's not necessarily agreeable. There are a dozen similar biogeographic lines (e.g., Lydekker). As well, the Penguin Dictionary of Biology indicates the Wallace Line is not a clear line of demarcation. Moreover, ecozones are not necessarily synonymous with continents or their regions: the Wallace line is primarily a biogeographic delimiter between the 'Australasian/Oceanic’ and Indomalayan ecozones (since renamed to Arctogea and something else that currently escapes me). The Wallace line has little relevance phyisographically and almost none geopolitically.
Speaking of which: no sources have been provided to indicate that East Timor is 'geographically' – again, you mean physiographically -- in Oceania. (Mind you, I don't necessarily challenge this; see below.) Timor is separated from the rest of the Australian shelf by the Timor Trench; please source that it is of Oceania. (The Wp aticle indicates only that it is 'peripherally Melanesian' only.) And note that (according to Britannica) Australasia is one region within Oceania that (depending on definition) overlaps Melanesia (including East Timor), Micronesia, and Polynesia. Definitions for Oceania vary: some include Australia/New Zealand (e.g., Natl Geo Atlas print refers to the region as ‘Australia and Oceania’), some exclude both, and some include ALL of the islands of the Malay Archipelago (e.g., East Timor, but also Borneo). For various reasons, the UN has classified East Timor as being Melanesian, as have other sources (Encyclopedia Britannica) so this should’t be problematic.
Many reliable sources (e.g., Collins Atlas, Natl Geo) include Papua New Guinea in Oceania, splitting the island of New Guinea between Asia and Oceania. SImilarly, East Timor is included in Asia. The original table – per the cited UN scheme -- delimited the countries this way. Moreover, retaining the arrangement of the status quo table would reflect representations (e.g., maps, tables) in common publications, so a geopolitical split is not at all incorrect.
Given varied interpretations/definitions for what exactly Oceania is and the above, a geopolitical split per the UN scheme isn’t ideal but IMO better than other more tenuous options presented. 65.92.173.131 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Who uses this term? I think it was used in the 19th century, and it may be the correct name for the region in some languages, but in English it seems rather obscure. A Google search for "Oceanica" restricted to English language sites showed mainly commercial sites, not references to the region, some antique maps, and some dictionary entries saying it was a synonym. My feeling is that it should not get equal billing with "Oceania" in the first paragraph.- gadfium 23:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
All things considered, i reckon that the capital of Tokelau should be Wellington? any pros and cons? moza 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Per the (other) continental articles and pending a groundswell of opposition, I've been bold and nixed the redundant list of territories which is essentially duplicated in the summative table; I've not detailed the political status of the various territories but I might later (this might be too much information for the current table). Perhaps the column concerning population density can be retrofitted to succinctly detail political status instead. Of course, this article (and similar continental/regional articles) can stand for some reorganisation (e.g., re-ordering of sxns) for consistency ... perhaps in a manner similar to the structure of country articles as prescribed in the country wikiproject? Anyhow, there you go!` E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Editor 60.230.211.176 has added tags suggesting Australasia and Oceania be merged. This was proposed before, about six months ago, and the discussion had been gathering comments up until the day before it was archived a month ago. So I think it's worth resurrecting the old discussion. I'll paste it back in below. -- Avenue 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, in order to have the merge discussions at one place, I hv suggested that all discussions about the proposed merge take place here so that continuity is not lost (else, we would end up with discussions on both talkpages - the other talk page being Talk:Australasia making it difficult to follow who is saying what). I believe that the merge is justified because of the following reasons: -
-- Gurubrahma 11:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Very Strong oppose Brian (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the distinction is justified. There are a lot of overlapping spheres within the Pacific, and depending on whether you're talking about colonial history/language/people/climate/sport/politics whatever, the different terms serve to highlight different associations. For example, Australia and New Zealand have a lot in common, but in different contexts New Zealand is more associated with the Pacific Islands, and at other times other groupings are also useful. Anecdotally, I've found Oceania to be the new fangled term (and really only associate it it with soccer and the olympics), with Pacific/Polynesia/Australasia being the terms I'm more familiar with. So I guess that's a belated oppose... Limegreen 10:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
In the Oceania page the listed "1 July 2002" population estimate is listed as 28,159,300 which is roughly 10% of the actual population. As a result the tabulated population totals for Oceania is also correct. I do not know what the actual number should be, but I do know it should be over 200,000,000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.99.166 ( talk • contribs) .
Someone wants to delete Australasia as a heading from the territories table. I've reverted it for now, but it should be discussed here, I guess. Previous discussions have established that some people don't like the term and some do. I don't know of a more neutral term for that region (or any other term at all) and think it's a good idea to have a subdivision in the table. So, discuss, please. It's currently in, why take it out? · rodii · 20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, this issue is apparently spillover from another discussion taking place on the Talk:South America? This particular article uses the four-part Australasia/Micro/Mela/Polynesia division, but anon 142.150.134.50 and User:Alinor seem to be battling it out about using the UN scheme, which (in Oceania) has "Australia and New Zealand" instead. 142.* keeps asking in edit summaries for people to discuss here, but he/she doesn't discuss here. I'm not sure how to go forward on this. · rodii · 12:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
On reflection I am going to change my view given above. I think the heading should be "Australia and New Zealand". The places listed are Australia and New Zealand plus some Australian Territories. The term Australasia is sometimes used to include all the places listed under Melanesia, particularly PNG, so Australasia is inappropriate here. We do clearer need some heading. -- Bduke 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm the anon. :) I agree with you somewhat, R.; this is difficult to address. The UN system uses "Australia and New Zealand" to classify that particular region. I presume that "Australasia" was not chosen due to the varying interpretations of that term (e.g., A + NZ + New Guinea, etc.) ... just as much as the other three regions of Oceania are rather loosely defined too (e.g., inclusion of East Timor). While I'm not wholly resistant to using Australasia for that section (if, for anything, lack of anything better and since some works like Britannics use it to refer to the A-NZ dyad), I'd prefer to use the UN term or to leave it blank since entries below (in that section) clearly indicate one or the other. I hope this makes sense. FWIW: I do like your compromise version, R.
As for the other table entries (e.g., South America), recent similar changes have been wilfully made without any discussion or reasoning as to why the prior versions, which have prevailed for months, are insufficient. In addition, they are unsourced and contestable since most common publications (e.g, atlases) do not corroborate recent changes. Thus, the prior versions should hold and I've nothing more to note on that issue. 142.150.134.65 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is clearly preferable, not only for reasons of simplicity, but above all since the term Australasia, as has thoroughly been established in a previous discussion, is not very viable at all, being some sort of diffuse categorisation regarding the intermediate Pacific regions, with little appeal, as far as the ambition is to maintain a certain conceptual clarity. /Copywriter
Here's another option: move NZ to the Polynesia section, and change the Australasia heading to Australia. This is a much cleaner classification in my opinion. If NZ stays where it is, then I agree with rodii about the heading. -- Avenue 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
We are indeed operating in a geograpically complex domain, although somehow the rather basic and rarely argued distinction between Remote and Near Oceania appears rather robust, in particular when in comes to Near Oceania, by all standards including merely Australia, New Guinea and the Salomon Islands, which makes Remote Oceania the true residual sphere open to alternative interpretations and categorisations. I don't know whether a stronger focus on this overall division of the Oceanian territories might to some extent make the somehow hard-to-solve Australasia dilemma superfluous. /Copywriter
The gradually evolving consensus regarding the non-distinct nature of the Australasia geographical category must be welcomed. Apart from the slightly ridiculous, post-colonial character of the name itself, it above all does not add very much clarity when it comes to identifying the relevant sub-sectors of the Pacific map, adequately linking these into world geography. Copywriter, 20 November 2006
Supposedly Australia and New Zealand is the name traditionally having been used to cover the corresponding domains from a political point of view, not only locally, but in Britain as well. Compare for example the party program of the British Labour party from 1950. “We in Great Britain stand - in all respects except for distance - closer to our relatives in Australia and New Zealand far away at the other end of the world than we stand to Europe." Compare also the motivation of the Australian Nobel Prize winner in literature of 1973, Patrick White: “for an epic and psychological narrative art, which has brought a new continent into world literature”. It is not until recently that it has at all been an issue how the territory shall be named, not to discriminate the somewhat smaller countries in the area. The term Australiasia is indeed an attempt to solve the dilemma, however not a very successful one, as seems to have been agreed. /Copywriter February 9th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.231.76.234 ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It would seem unfair, almost strange, to place New Zealand in Polynesia, since Niue and Tokelau are New Zealand dependancies. I understand that New Zealand is a part of Polynesia, but I would think that it would be better to have it seperate, much like Australia is listed. I am talking about the Countries and territories of Oceania, that is displayed at the bottom of somepages, such as the Oceania page, Midway Atoll etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phoenix715 ( talk • contribs) .
In the first lines of the Palau article it is written "...it is traditionally considered to be Melanesian". Also, it looks so by virtue of its location. So, should we put it there? Alinor 06:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
According to the article, Indonesia is part of Oceania, but only half of the islands in the Indonesian Archipelago are highlighted in the world map. Is only half of the nation considered a part of Oceania? Or is the map inaccurate? Orichalcon 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
East Timor is part of Asia, Southeast Asia more specifically, PERIOD! Even while East Timor has cultural and linguistical ties with "Melanesia" it is geographically part of Asia (Southeast Asia) and universally accepted so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.255.230.227 ( talk • contribs) .
· rodii · 13:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The status wikipedia gives to East Timor is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_nation#East_Timor Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.197.75 ( talk) 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I find the table much harder to read now that the countries are called by their formal names, following this edit by 71.99.110.7. I'm tempted to change them back. Any thoughts? -- Avenue 02:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Name of territory, with flag [1] |
Area (km²) |
Population ( 1 July 2002 estimate) |
Population density (per km²) |
Capital |
---|---|---|---|---|
Australasia [2] | ||||
![]() |
7,686,850 | 19,546,792 | 2.5 | Canberra |
![]() |
135 | 474 | 3.5 | The Settlement |
![]() |
14 | 632 | 45.1 | West Island |
![]() |
268,680 | 3,908,037 | 14.5 | Wellington |
![]() |
35 | 1,866 | 53.3 | Kingston |
Melanesia | ||||
![]() |
18,270 | 856,346 | 46.9 | Suva |
![]() |
745,798 | 28,159,300 | 37.8 | Jakarta |
![]() |
19,060 | 207,858 | 10.9 | Nouméa |
![]() |
462,840 | 5,172,033 | 11.2 | Port Moresby |
![]() |
28,450 | 494,786 | 17.4 | Honiara |
![]() |
15,007 | 952,618 | 63.5 | Dili |
![]() |
12,200 | 196,178 | 16.1 | Port Vila |
Micronesia | ||||
![]() |
702 | 135,869 | 193.5 | Palikir |
![]() |
549 | 160,796 | 292.9 | Hagåtña |
![]() |
811 | 96,335 | 118.8 | Bairiki |
![]() |
181 | 73,630 | 406.8 | Majuro |
![]() |
21 | 12,329 | 587.1 | Yaren |
![]() |
477 | 77,311 | 162.1 | Saipan |
![]() |
458 | 19,409 | 42.4 | Koror |
Polynesia [6] | ||||
![]() |
199 | 68,688 | 345.2 | Fagatogo, Utulei [7] |
![]() |
240 | 20,811 | 86.7 | Avarua |
![]() |
4,167 | 257,847 | 61.9 | Papeete |
![]() |
260 | 2,134 | 8.2 | Alofi |
![]() |
47 | 47 | 1.0 | Adamstown |
![]() |
2,944 | 178,631 | 60.7 | Apia |
![]() |
10 | 1,431 | 143.1 | — [8] |
![]() |
748 | 106,137 | 141.9 | Nuku'alofa |
![]() |
26 | 11,146 | 428.7 | Vaiaku |
![]() |
274 | 15,585 | 56.9 | Mata-Utu |
Total | 9,269,453 | 60,735,056 | 6.6 |
Notes:
Name of
region
[1] and territory, with flag |
Area (km²) |
Population ( 1 July 2002 est.) |
Population density (per km²) |
Capital |
---|---|---|---|---|
Central Asia: | ||||
![]() |
2,346,927 | 13,472,593 | 5.7 | Astana |
![]() |
198,500 | 4,822,166 | 24.3 | Bishkek |
![]() |
143,100 | 6,719,567 | 47.0 | Dushanbe |
![]() |
488,100 | 4,688,963 | 9.6 | Ashgabat |
![]() |
447,400 | 25,563,441 | 57.1 | Tashkent |
Eastern Asia: | ||||
![]() |
9,584,492 | 1,315,844,000 | 134.0 | Beijing |
![]() |
1,092 | 7,041,000 | 6,688.0 | — |
![]() |
377,835 | 128,085,000 | 336.1 | Tokyo |
![]() |
25 | 488,144 | 18,473.3 | — |
![]() |
1,565,000 | 2,832,224 | 1.7 | Ulaanbaatar |
![]() |
120,540 | 23,113,019 | 184.4 | Pyongyang |
![]() |
98,480 | 47,817,000 | 490.7 | Seoul |
![]() |
35,980 | 22,548,009 | 626.7 | Taipei |
Eastern Europe: | ||||
![]() |
13,115,200 | 39,129,729 | 3.0 | Moscow |
Northern Africa: | ||||
![]() |
63,556 | 1,378,159 | 21.7 | Cairo |
Southeastern Asia: [9] | ||||
![]() |
5,770 | 350,898 | 60.8 | Bandar Seri Begawan |
![]() |
181,040 | 12,775,324 | 70.6 | Phnom Penh |
![]() |
1,158,645 | 208,176,381 | 179.7 | Jakarta |
![]() |
236,800 | 5,777,180 | 24.4 | Vientiane |
![]() |
329,750 | 22,662,365 | 68.7 | Kuala Lumpur |
![]() |
678,500 | 42,238,224 | 62.3 | Naypyidaw |
![]() |
300,000 | 84,525,639 | 281.8 | Manila |
![]() |
693 | 4,452,732 | 6,425.3 | Singapore |
![]() |
514,000 | 62,354,402 | 121.3 | Bangkok |
![]() |
329,560 | 81,098,416 | 246.1 | Hanoi |
Southern Asia: | ||||
![]() |
647,500 | 29,863,000 | 42.9 | Kabul |
![]() |
144,000 | 141,822,000 | 985 | Dhaka |
![]() |
47,000 | 2,232,291 | 44.6 | Thimphu |
![]() |
3,287,590 | 1,103,371,000 | 318.2 | New Delhi |
![]() |
1,648,195 | 68,467,413 | 40.4 | Tehran |
![]() |
300 | 329,000 | 1,067.2 | Malé |
![]() |
140,800 | 27,133,000 | 183.8 | Kathmandu |
![]() |
803,940 | 163,985,373 | 183.7 | Islamabad |
![]() |
65,610 | 20,743,000 | 298.4 | Colombo |
Western Asia: | ||||
![]() |
33,300 | 3,016,000 | 111.7 | Yerevan |
![]() |
41,370 | 3,479,127 | 84.1 | Baku |
![]() |
665 | 656,397 | 987.1 | Manama |
![]() |
9,250 | 775,927 | 83.9 | Nicosia |
![]() |
363 | 1,203,591 | 3,315.7 | Gaza |
![]() |
20,460 | 2,032,004 | 99.3 | Tbilisi |
![]() |
437,072 | 24,001,816 | 54.9 | Baghdad |
![]() |
20,770 | 6,029,529 | 290.3 | Jerusalem |
![]() |
92,300 | 5,307,470 | 57.5 | Amman |
![]() |
17,820 | 2,111,561 | 118.5 | Kuwait City |
![]() |
10,400 | 3,677,780 | 353.6 | Beirut |
![]() |
5,500 | 365,000 | 66.4 | Nakhichevan City |
![]() |
212,460 | 2,713,462 | 12.8 | Muscat |
![]() |
11,437 | 793,341 | 69.4 | Doha |
![]() |
1,960,582 | 23,513,330 | 12.0 | Riyadh |
![]() |
185,180 | 17,155,814 | 92.6 | Damascus |
![]() |
756,768 | 57,855,068 | 76.5 | Ankara |
![]() |
82,880 | 2,445,989 | 29.5 | Abu Dhabi |
![]() |
5,860 | 2,303,660 | 393.1 | — |
![]() |
527,970 | 18,701,257 | 35.4 | Sanaá |
Total | 43,549,241 | 3,793,712,193 | 87.1 |
Notes:
because of error of appearing/editing notes for both tables are repeated below the second
Alinor 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Please provide authoritative sources that indicate the Wallace Line is or should be used as the delimiter for Asia and Oceania. Of course, I do not question its validity -- since Wallace is so short-changed when it comes to the theory of evolution (sometimes credited with Darwin) -- but the table seems to have been revised as such without discussion nor consensus ... and it's not necessarily agreeable. There are a dozen similar biogeographic lines (e.g., Lydekker). As well, the Penguin Dictionary of Biology indicates the Wallace Line is not a clear line of demarcation. Moreover, ecozones are not necessarily synonymous with continents or their regions: the Wallace line is primarily a biogeographic delimiter between the 'Australasian/Oceanic’ and Indomalayan ecozones (since renamed to Arctogea and something else that currently escapes me). The Wallace line has little relevance phyisographically and almost none geopolitically.
Speaking of which: no sources have been provided to indicate that East Timor is 'geographically' – again, you mean physiographically -- in Oceania. (Mind you, I don't necessarily challenge this; see below.) Timor is separated from the rest of the Australian shelf by the Timor Trench; please source that it is of Oceania. (The Wp aticle indicates only that it is 'peripherally Melanesian' only.) And note that (according to Britannica) Australasia is one region within Oceania that (depending on definition) overlaps Melanesia (including East Timor), Micronesia, and Polynesia. Definitions for Oceania vary: some include Australia/New Zealand (e.g., Natl Geo Atlas print refers to the region as ‘Australia and Oceania’), some exclude both, and some include ALL of the islands of the Malay Archipelago (e.g., East Timor, but also Borneo). For various reasons, the UN has classified East Timor as being Melanesian, as have other sources (Encyclopedia Britannica) so this should’t be problematic.
Many reliable sources (e.g., Collins Atlas, Natl Geo) include Papua New Guinea in Oceania, splitting the island of New Guinea between Asia and Oceania. SImilarly, East Timor is included in Asia. The original table – per the cited UN scheme -- delimited the countries this way. Moreover, retaining the arrangement of the status quo table would reflect representations (e.g., maps, tables) in common publications, so a geopolitical split is not at all incorrect.
Given varied interpretations/definitions for what exactly Oceania is and the above, a geopolitical split per the UN scheme isn’t ideal but IMO better than other more tenuous options presented. 65.92.173.131 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Who uses this term? I think it was used in the 19th century, and it may be the correct name for the region in some languages, but in English it seems rather obscure. A Google search for "Oceanica" restricted to English language sites showed mainly commercial sites, not references to the region, some antique maps, and some dictionary entries saying it was a synonym. My feeling is that it should not get equal billing with "Oceania" in the first paragraph.- gadfium 23:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)