Jump to content

Talk:Member states of Mercosur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)).[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bolivia section was bad eyesore sh!t; it is somewhat better now. Bye by buy. (Merkosur (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Member states of Mercosur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Member states of Mercosur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]