|
Thanks for your edit in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania. I have introduced changes to the list's organization that I believe reflect the consensus better. Let me know what you thin. Ladril ( talk) 00:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
And also I think we can "make" CI/Niue sovereign on such pages as List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. CI/Niue are considered non-sovereign there! What you think? User02062000 ( talk) 05:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. User02062000 ( talk) 12:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your edits to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania. I keep reverting your edits because they are not accurate. Three states in the first section are also associated states: Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. This is why the talk page discussion resulted in the current consensus. Once again, please do not try to force your changes, but follow process and engage in talk page discussion before substantially changing the labels on the page. Ladril ( talk) 19:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Yeah, it's right. If you won't oppose I'll only change a note that CI/Niue are "sovereign". Of course, they are far more independent than a dependency, but politically they never considered themselves independent and sovereign, aren't they? I'll change this, and also I offer you to think on the sections' names. I thinks names aren't very correct... User02062000 ( talk) 15:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
They're independent in their affairs, and this ability makes them de facto independent countries. Thus other countries can recognize them to have relations. CI/Niue consider themselves freely associated states, not more. They are independent-like autonomies. User02062000 ( talk) 17:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
They are de facto sovereign, not de jure. I think on this list we must represent states upon de jure point (if not, Palestine shouldn't be included in list of Asian states). What do you think about? User02062000 ( talk) 19:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I agree. It's right. User02062000 ( talk) 18:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The idea that bacteria represent a Kingdom is outdated. The "traditional" classification scheme is outdated and is being rejected in favor of the three domains of life view proposed by Woese. [1] The kingdom page has problems with it as it is describing outdated ideas. We now think there are several kingdoms. Any discussion of kingdom should happen on the kingdom page, but bacteria are a domain. I think that calling bacteria a kingdom only confuses readers who want to learn about the subject. Additionally, consensus in the sciences is that bacteria are a domain. Theropod ( talk) 15:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It is partially right, nevertheless traditional classification is still very much in use and is represented in many textbooks from many countries. You wanna say that Eukarya domain is divided into 4 (or more) kingdoms, while prokaryotes aren't? Again, I note that the traditional system is used in many authorities and sometimes is preferred instead of modern phylogenetic-based systems like Woese's. My position, there must be not only domains but kingdoms. For example, you can visit the website of Catalogue of Life and see classification system used there. Isn't it right? User02062000 ( talk) 17:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
|
Thanks for your edit in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania. I have introduced changes to the list's organization that I believe reflect the consensus better. Let me know what you thin. Ladril ( talk) 00:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
And also I think we can "make" CI/Niue sovereign on such pages as List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. CI/Niue are considered non-sovereign there! What you think? User02062000 ( talk) 05:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. User02062000 ( talk) 12:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your edits to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania. I keep reverting your edits because they are not accurate. Three states in the first section are also associated states: Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. This is why the talk page discussion resulted in the current consensus. Once again, please do not try to force your changes, but follow process and engage in talk page discussion before substantially changing the labels on the page. Ladril ( talk) 19:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Yeah, it's right. If you won't oppose I'll only change a note that CI/Niue are "sovereign". Of course, they are far more independent than a dependency, but politically they never considered themselves independent and sovereign, aren't they? I'll change this, and also I offer you to think on the sections' names. I thinks names aren't very correct... User02062000 ( talk) 15:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
They're independent in their affairs, and this ability makes them de facto independent countries. Thus other countries can recognize them to have relations. CI/Niue consider themselves freely associated states, not more. They are independent-like autonomies. User02062000 ( talk) 17:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
They are de facto sovereign, not de jure. I think on this list we must represent states upon de jure point (if not, Palestine shouldn't be included in list of Asian states). What do you think about? User02062000 ( talk) 19:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I agree. It's right. User02062000 ( talk) 18:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The idea that bacteria represent a Kingdom is outdated. The "traditional" classification scheme is outdated and is being rejected in favor of the three domains of life view proposed by Woese. [1] The kingdom page has problems with it as it is describing outdated ideas. We now think there are several kingdoms. Any discussion of kingdom should happen on the kingdom page, but bacteria are a domain. I think that calling bacteria a kingdom only confuses readers who want to learn about the subject. Additionally, consensus in the sciences is that bacteria are a domain. Theropod ( talk) 15:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It is partially right, nevertheless traditional classification is still very much in use and is represented in many textbooks from many countries. You wanna say that Eukarya domain is divided into 4 (or more) kingdoms, while prokaryotes aren't? Again, I note that the traditional system is used in many authorities and sometimes is preferred instead of modern phylogenetic-based systems like Woese's. My position, there must be not only domains but kingdoms. For example, you can visit the website of Catalogue of Life and see classification system used there. Isn't it right? User02062000 ( talk) 17:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)