This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
There needs to be some source to what parts of Indonesia are considered part of Oceania. The idea that Indonesia is a transcontinental country seems rather odd, and is afaik far from universally recognized. If there is no comments to this and no source is added I will consider removing Indonesia.--Batmacumba (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indonesia shouldn't be removed because Western New Guinea is clearly a part of Oceania (as well as the Aru Islands, both regions are located on the Australian continent). In fact, Indonesia (Oceanian part) makes the country the third-largest country in Oceania, just behind Australia and Papua New Guinea.
However, the area of Indonesia (Oceanian part) in this article is unsourced and incorrect. The figure is too big, if we add up the areas of Western New Guinea and the Aru Islands, we get 421,597 sq km, not 459,411 sq km. Whoever put that figure in probably used an unconventional definition of Oceania which includes more Indonesian islands in the Wallacea region. I will correct the figure. Vic Park (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting the page to the more correct version[edit]
Reverting the page to the more correct version, as I understand it, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so it's not a newspaper page.
If there is outdated information, it is to update, it is not to make amalgamation, and turn another page with letters and numbers without content, in short, without content there are many pages of newspapers that are already more than enough, for this and for the other world...
What you left was a page of numbers, it did not contain relevant information or knowledge, it became irrelevant...
Now, what is it like to have content and relevant information, more precisely what it should contain is information, knowledge, of course, to be shared, to be relevant, in this specific case about the region in question...
From this point on, just correct the information of the areas... and add the svg file...
I really don't understand what you're saying. Can you be more specific?
Also, your revert removed all of the sources for the most relevant information.
I will revert to the version where the areas have a source. If there is any information highly relevant to both area and geography in general not already covered, please add it in the associated note column with an {efn | } tag.
Hi, sorry for the delay, but I have had other things to do, so I did not reply as soon as possible, I think the job you have done is good...
I just do not think it is right to delete everything and make a new table with everything piled up...
Let me explain, I read data tables from time to time, for different things, and when the data is piled up, for example countries and territories, because they are different things, it makes me or anyone else have to go and read additional information, to understand the wheat from the chaff (this is a Portuguese expression).
Other example, the column of areas both values in the same column, there are two systems, the metric and the imperial, for some is the metric system other is the imperial system, so, if the table can automatically present these 2 values in a separated columns it is better.
For those who must read it, the information must be relevant and distinct, as well as a column indicating the population of these countries and territories, as well as additional information on how those territories, How these territories are managed?, as well as the reference to that relevant piece of information, which is what allows access to knowledge.
Transform information into knowledge.
I agree with that third table, because it gives additional information of areas in percentage it was to incorporate this column in the two other tables, and of course it is correcting the information of areas in the other tables and placing the links to the sources of information...
The countries and territories are indicated as different in two ways. The countries are all ranked, and the territories are not ranked, and also the territories have (in parentheses) the owner of that territory. The management type of the territory doesn't really seem relevant to a table about area specifically (seems like chaff to me). Does it matter if it's a dependent territory, an overseas territory, or an external territory? No. If anything really does need to be there, it can be in an associated note (hyperlinked), but shouldn't crowd up a table that's already busy with area figures.
One problem with separating countries and territories entirely is that there are two edges cases here: Hawaii and West New Guinea. These are really integral parts of the country they're in, for Indonesia a small part and for the US a very small part. But it doesn't seem like it makes sense to say that they're Oceanic countries, and they're not territories. So may as well put everything in the same list. They're all just regions anyhow. And don't forget Niue and Cook Islands, which are currently listed as territories, and they act like them, but they're really sovereign states.
It might be better to make a table about the countries generally, such as exists at the Caribbean article or even mostly exists in the Oceania article. It could be its own article, or you could try improving the table at Oceania.
For metric and imperial, you can see that metric always comes first in my version, and then imperial in parentheses (see the column name). This has long worked for the article on all countries, and merging the columns makes the single fact (in two forms) take up less space and make the table easier to read. I really don't understand your point "for some is the metric system other is the imperial system". They're different, yes, but for proportions between countries you can just rely on the percentage column, and for exact figures you can simply decide whether you're going to look at km or sqmi and look left or right.
We really have to get this all down to one table, because repeating is not a good option and separating countries from territories is a dubious distinction for this region especially. Wizmut (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should this article have its own unique style, or should it fit in with other articles of this type? This question includes having one table or two tables, one or two columns for area, and whether or not to have extra information not related to area. Wizmut (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article stood for many years without any sources, as well as having an unusual style. I renovated the table with detailed sources to fit it in with the other continents' articles (see List of African countries by area and List of Asian countries by area). As you can see those two a pretty laser-focused on area, while this one cuts the region in two based on political status (territory or sovereign), and also devotes a lot of space to explaining the name of the type of relationship each territory has with its sovereign.
In my opinion the detailed information stating each sovereign's relationship with its territory might fit into an article about these countries generally, but this is an article about area. And splitting is not something done on the big article (List of countries and dependencies by area), because some regions seem to exist on the line between country and territory. And it simply makes more sense to first compare distinct regions based on their size, rather than political status. New Caledonia on this list is bigger than most of the sovereign states, but it's not even above the fold. All territories can be simply marked with a (France) for example to indicate that they are not sovereign.
I also combined the square kilometer and square mile columns to mainly focus on square kilometers, with imperial in parentheses. This is what all the other articles do, because it's easier to read and takes up less space.
For convenience the current version as of this writing is here:
(Summoned by bot)Asingle table should be enough. The text before the table should explain the inclusion criteria and non-sovereign territories should be clearly marked (e.g. with their country en parenthesis), with additional footnotes if needed. Having 3 tables here is complete overkill. --MarioGom (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any real criticisms with these changes. The greater attention to area is a plus, and I found the three different tables to be a bit excessive. I would like it better if the lead was more detailed; via having the requirements for inclusion, but that could always be improved later. Deauthorized. (talk)23:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
