|WikiProject Oceania||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
The map would make a whole lot more sense with Australia centred. Is that allowed? Or is there a law that US/Europe must be centred on maps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a tug of war developing between bouncy enthusiasm in the first section (everybody wants to add their hometown), and sombre nit-picking in the second. The page is about a real thing, the "Pacific Rim" exists, but it has several faces; such as:
- the physical geography entity, which also kind of overlaps with the geological "Ring of Fire"
- the economics / marketing meme
- the NGOs and IGOs that have emerged to exploit / develop 2.
- possible social / demographic / anthropology systems arising out of relationships around the PR
Can the page be re-structured to highlight these different aspects? That could be a way to establish neutrality, to make it clear which of the various nuances of "Pacific Rim" we are talking about at each step. Swiveler (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
More footnotes tag added
This article has an impressive bibliography that is useless due to the lack of inline citations. The one footnote cites About.com, which is not a reliable source, as it often mirrors past and present versions of Wikipedia. --momoricks talk 02:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is with the reference to "persons of a mixed background, with one half of their heritage originated from a country of the Pacific Rim." Sorry, but I'm throwing a bullshit flag on the play. Princess sarah5 - Put it up again sans reference and I will delete it again. Just because you think a term is clever doesn't give you the right to induct it into the English language via Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)