Talk:Oceania (Nineteen Eighty-Four)

africa

I seem to remember from when I read the book for school that there was an attack on Oceanian Africa described as a white arrow? (winston was pleased about it) - then later another black? arrow cut across the white one, which meant that the territories were back to their original positions. It was about 10 yrs ago that I read it so I cant remember exactly --Astrokey44 09:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this was how they looked, based on [1] --Astrokey44 11:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

edits

I removed the final line of the article "According to Goldstein's book, Oceania's main natural defense is its oceans" because this fact is already mentioned in the second paragraph of the article. 68.229.130.236 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oceania National Anthem

Its been awhile since I've read 1984, but is "Oceanian Tis for Thee" even mentioned in the book, or is it only in the Michael Radford movie version? If its not in the book, the article should mention that only the movie version gives a national anthem. Also, the line "the song shares many similarities with Soviet anthems" – I too notice a similarity (in places) between the Dominic Muldowney composition and the Hymn of the Soviet Union, however, any such observation constitutes original research unless cited from a published source. I've flagged these lines and may revise them further soon. Peter G Werner 19:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just searched an online version of 1984 here. Oceania 'Tis for Thee is mentioned in the second chapter. My suspicion that the comparison to Soviet anthems is original research still stands, though. Peter G Werner 20:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging this article (Oceania (Nineteen Eighty-Four)) with Eurasia (Nineteen Eighty-Four) and Eastasia (Nineteen Eighty-Four). There is not much information on the three super-states in the original work, not enough to justify seperate articles for them in my opinion. I propose a single "Nations of 1984" or somesuch article, with a section for each of the three states (Oceania, Eastasia & Eurasia), a section on the possibility that none of the states exist in this form (as nearly all of the information on them comes from the party) and, perhaps, a final section on the states in other media (film adaptations and such). Thoughts? Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• NO What would the new artcile be called--Brown Shoes22 (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As I suggested above, "Nations of 1984" would work, as would "Geography of 1984" or "World of 1984." Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Good idea - go for it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is certainly enough information and cultural justification to have Oceania at least have its own article. Kuralyov (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The lack of sources suggest otherwise. If large amounts of sources are found, THEN a seperate article can be spun off.Yobmod (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support - I was thinking the same thing. I think it would be more efficient to have all of them (including Oceania) in one single article, rather than in separate articles.--Witan (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, but it looks for the moment like we are lacking consensus. I think I'm going to put in a request for comment from other editors to try to get a better sense. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support: I'm from RfC and, especially in regards to fictional topics, it is better to have closely-related, relatively small topics merged into a single article. A reader will likely be interested in all three.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support: These articles don't look like they can be expanded much further, and none of them are large enough to stand alone. To me it makes perfect sense to combine them. Fleebo (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - It seems like a pretty clear consensus is starting to develop.--Witan (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Highly probable?

... that Oceania is only Britain? I didn't get that... 74.224.87.50 (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four. -- Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---

{{RFCmedia}}

Should the articles Oceania (Nineteen Eighty-Four), Eastasia (Nineteen Eighty-Four) and Eurasia (Nineteen Eighty-Four) be merged into a single "Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four" article? See above relevant discussion as well.

Stongly Support merge. Neither article is very long or likely to become so, and i do not believe that ANY reader will be interested in this article without wanting to see the other(s). Having them all on the same page will allow direct comparison without needing repetition, and will be much more useful. A combined article has featured article potential in the long run, the individual articles not. (I'm purposely ignoring the fact that both articles are unreferenced, and therefore essentially useless).Yobmod (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that was going to be "step 2."  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support The individual articles would benefit from being presented in the same context per WP:MERGE. dissolve^talk 22:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. But we need to do a "history merge", too, to preserve who has edited each article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing a pretty clear consensus, I will now begin the merging. Thanks for the help and comments, guys. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.