Talk:Member states of Mercosur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

improvizationeonays[edit]

The butttman, myself, has helped improve the article. Keep an eye out for more stuff on Bolivia and Ecuador in the near future. Peace out homies, butttman has some stuff to do now. (Butttman (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)).


BOLIVIA IS ALREADY A MEMBER: MAKING IT SIX MEMBERS IN TOTAL: SEE ARTICLE: http://en.mercopress.com/2013/07/18/venezuelan-parliament-approves-incorporation-of-bolivia-to-mercosur-as-full-member — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.201.161.146 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

This edit has introduced numerous poor changes. Since the user doesn't seem to understand my edit summaries and is intent on edit warring their desired changes into the article, Ill start a discussion here:

  • This source says nothing about New Zealand being an observer. It discusses NZ seeking a FTA. Putting the link next to New Zealand, when it says nothing about the thing it purports to verify, is extremely misleading and unhelpful.
  • This link discusses both full/associate/observers so it fits better at the top
  • The article is titled "Member states of Mercosur" so we should follow this usage and describe them as "states". Country is ambiguous in the English language. All of the entries on this list are states.
  • "Protocol of Accession to Mercosur" is redundant. All that is needed is "Protocol of Accession".
  • The removal of "to become associate states" from the sentence on Guyana and Suriname is unhelpful. The entire point of listing them here is because they are to become associate states. If we don't tell readers that how will they know?
  • Changing the sentence "These agreements will enter into force following their ratification, which is subject to legislate approval in each state." -> "However, this proposal requires legislative approval to be valid" makes it far less informative and is poorly written. The agreement needs more than legislative approval. It must be ratified. Why shouldn't be explain this to the reader?
  • There is lots of poor formatting including excessive whitespace and punctuation after references.

Is there a valid reason for reverting these changes? TDL (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)