nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 64:
Line 64: + +
→Continental boundaries: Should be in the/a article.
So, I guess in the end, it's a matter of definition and accepted models. Most Australians have grown up with the idea of the Island/Nation/Continent idea (thus discounting New Guinea) but if one takes a geological perspective then New Guinea definitely is included. From the perspective of plate techtonics and the various continental plates, India should also be included in that plate but Oceania is a separate plate and geological area. --[[User:Bilby|Bilby]] 22:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
So, I guess in the end, it's a matter of definition and accepted models. Most Australians have grown up with the idea of the Island/Nation/Continent idea (thus discounting New Guinea) but if one takes a geological perspective then New Guinea definitely is included. From the perspective of plate techtonics and the various continental plates, India should also be included in that plate but Oceania is a separate plate and geological area. --[[User:Bilby|Bilby]] 22:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Not sure I agree with ''all'' of that, but what I really want to comment on is that (a) the article ''and not the talk page'' is part of the encyclopedia, so the article should not refer to the encyclopedia, even in a footnote, and therefore (b) this information should be either incorporated into the article proper or in a separate article linked from this one. I'm therefore going to remove the reference to this talk page from the article's footnote. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)