Talk:Oceania/Archive 1

message: Biogeographically or ethnographically or in terms of plate techtonics, the inclusion, as part of Oceania, of Australia/New Guinea ('Papua New Guinea' is a political designation, like 'Haiti/Dominican Republic') might be explained, as it is unusual. New Zealand is in all these senses part of Oceania. But is Australia actually included because of accidents of European 'discovery' or British Empire history? User:Wetman [  19:35, 28 September 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure for which reasons Australia is (or can be) included, but AFAIK it's very common to see it lumped together with Oceania. This doesn't mean that I think it should be. (BTW, Paul Theroux used the name 'Meganesia' for Australia and New Zealand in his book The Happy Isles of Oceania.) OTOH, I thought that ethnographically speaking, New Guinea and the surrounding islands were part of Melanesia (and thus Oceania). D.D. 20:02, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion

message: This easily encompasses the territories between the East Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific. Sure, one can question the credibility, but a term should define the boundaries of a place. Australia only accounts for the latin Australis for South, and Asia is a large section of the Eurasian landmass. Bubble the terms into the Ocean defined category and it makes it a bit simpler. But one still has to consider the cultural congruencies of the regions...
Aminatam 21:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I can't make much sense of what you've written here ("Bubble the terms into the Ocean defined category"?). My take on the idea, however, is that "Indo-Pacifica" is a neologism, and thus not suitable for a Wikipedia article (see WP:Avoid_neologisms). People will come here looking for articles on Oceania and Australasia, because those are recognized terms. No one will search for "Indo-Pacifica". In my opinion, the question of whether those terms really make sense is best left to a critical discussion in the article, and shouldn't be answered by tinkering with the article namespace itself. rodii 02:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not really what Wikipedia is for.  We don't try to create new terms.  In fact, that's specifically against the guidelines. -- Dpark 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Come again? --cj | talk 11:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ASIA-PACIFIC is also a term used for many years, I dont think its that specific enough. PACIFIC RIM is also a useful description for a wider area of interest. I like INDO-PACIFIC as it contains elements of the continental plates that make up the region geologically; The INDO-AUSTRALIS meets the PACIFIC plate under the exact location I write this!! India and South-East Asia are very important influences on this region, perhaps thats related to the Southern Hemisphere part of Oceania more than the Northern Hemisphere part. Indonesia and China are also increasing in importance to this zone, perhaps more evenly distributed though, it all needs checking. PACIFICA or PACIFIKA ( 'k' used here in NZ) is used ncreasingly to describe cultural blends in art, particularly music. moza 12:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree strongly with Rodii, Dpark and (I think) cj about Indo-Pacifica. No neologisms please. I do like Pacifica as a cultural term, but haven't seen it used in a geographical sense. -- Avenue 11:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with R, dp, cj: there's little to support the use of this neologism in Wp.  Apropos, there are 859 online notations for "Indo-Pacifica", so it'll have to gain much more acceptance in common usage before being used to describe the region in Wp. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  sorry, I didnt make it clear that I wouldnt like the suggestion to be used for a major title to an article, I was just musing about liking it for something. I prefer Oceania. Likek CJ i wasnt taking it seriously...  I also can not see the value in using any recently made up names for something as ancient as this collection of 'communities of interest'. moza 13:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed General Name: Indo-Pacifica 

message: Folks, edit wars over spelling are lame. Let's not go there, please. Both variants are acceptable here. rodii 14:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't an edit war. An anon broke MoS convention, and Brian rightly reverted them.--cj | talk 14:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I'm saying, let's not have an edit war. rodii 15:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recognize/recognise 

message: Wasn't Oceania one of the three major powers in George Orwell's book "1984"? Should that be in this article somewhere?
:It is--look at the disambig notice at the very top: "For other uses of this term, see Oceania (disambiguation)." And that page has a link to Oceania (fiction). —rodii 23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orwell's 1984