Talk:Continent/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ahem... Don't think Latin Americans consider Antarctica a continent

I disagree with this sentence:

The 6-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America,

Iberia and some other parts of Europe.

In the part of Latin America where I live - Costa Rica - part of my explanation that American doesn't mean americano includes the number of continents: seven (according to my American education). My students from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Chile, and Argentina agree that there are FIVE continents, count 'em: América (from Canada to Tierra del Fuego), Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceanía. What about Antarctica? Their teachers never mentioned it, so it's not a continent, so there. Other students (I think from Columbia and Ecuador) learned there were six (divide América into North and South America and voilà).

So we can't generalize about Latin America. Shall we take a poll and specify which countries in Latin America teach 5 and which 6? Also, keep in mind the subset of students who go to bilingual schools in Latin America. They will often learn American, English, German, French (etc.) views of continental geography. Dblomgren 04:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I studied some years in Latin America and what I was tought; there were 6. Antartica is usually excluded because it's desertic. You can see that even in worldwide known issues the continent is excluded, just look at the olympic games logo. each circle supposedly represent each continent... and about the spanish name for this symbol (~) it's virgulilla. chech the name in the spanish wiki... it's there. --F3rn4nd0 01:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. In Colombia and Venezuela, but it may defer by country, Latin America is very diverse. Educational guidelines are established by ministries of education (Department of Education). But something interesting is that most of the Latin American major countries have signed the Antarctic Treaty System that recognizes Antartica. read also: [1]

--F3rn4nd0 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, this article implies that Latin Americans subdivide a single American continent 2 ways (North-Central and South). Considering Central America (Costa Rica to Tehuantepec) a separate subcontinent is geologically quite justified and is a commonplace view in Guatemala, where I live. I'm putting in weasel words as a minimum first step, obviously if someone wants to do a cleaner solution you're welcome to. --Homunq 19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Polling aside, this sort of information needs to be sourced since a number of other understandings of what comprise continents are referenced and interpretations can otherwise vary widely. If anything, the IOC reckoning of continents (demonstrated through the flag and current continental voting blocs) agrees with the understanding of your students, Dblomgren; see sources in the article. So, is Antarctica considered a continent because it's a landmass or is it excluded because it's desertic/generally unpopulated? Corticopia 19:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't generalize, I'm from Argentina and I never heard that Antarctica isn't a continent.

I'm not generalising: the IOC clearly doesn't include it. And the assertion that Antarctica may not be considered a continent isn't mine but of some in Latin America and elsewhere who have commented on this talk page. :) Corticopia 13:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese view

I've asked for a citation for the Japanese view because it is unclear. I take it they count 6 continents but do they count the Americas as one (implied in the History section) or do they count the Americas as two but Asia and Europe as one (stated in the Models section)? Nurg 08:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese use the 6-continent model with Eurasia. Source: goo dictionary - 大陸

地球上の広大な陸地。普通、ユーラシア（ヨーロッパ・アジア）・アフリカ・北アメリカ・南アメリカ・オーストラリア・南極の六大陸をいう。

(A large landmass on Earth. The six continents of Eurasia (Europe and Asia), Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica are usually recognized.)

TAKASUGI Shinji 03:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I presume you meant North & South America, not N & S Africa. Nurg 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the two Americas. Corrected my previous post. In Japanese, 大陸 (continent) and 州 (region) are clealy different; the latter means one of the following six regions: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Europe, and Oceania (not Australia). (Source: goo dictionary - 六大州) I'm sick and tired of Westerners who stick to the concept of Europe as a continent, but I understand it's because the word continent is both geographical and cultural/historical. - TAKASUGI Shinji 01:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The historical reasons

The concept of the continent was invented in the Ancient Age by Greeks and Romans to refer to the lands around the Mediterranean Sea. This lands were their world, so for them, the World was composed by the northern lands (Europe), the eastern lands (Asia) and the southern lands (Africa). In the west was just the Ocean. In 1492 Columbus arrived to some new lands, until then unknown by Europeans, and Vespucci called them America. Later, in the 16th century, were discovered Australia and many islands in the Pacific Ocean, and were called Oceania. In the beginning of the 20th century, these were the 5 continents (the continents that are reflected by the 5 Olympic rings in the flag invented by Pierre de Coubertin and used for the first time in 1920). There was only one more important part of the world that wasn't included in this classifications, because it was unhabited: the Antarctica, and recently it has been added to the list of the continents. So, for me, these are the continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Oceania and the Antarctica. In some sciences, this division can be difficult to use, and some subdivisions can be used, but if we change the list and significance of the continents every time we want, this classification we'll be unuseful. If every group of people makes their list, the classification of the lands by continents, we'll be absolutely unuseful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.235.32.222 (talk • contribs)

Australia (continent)

I draw attention to the discussion about this on Talk:Australia (continent), pointing out that if the major revision to the article (which I reverted) is reinstated, then for consistency, the map on this page (and many other pages) will need to revised. Viewfinder 06:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of 'continent of Australia'

Don't worry, this isn't another Oceania/Australia/Australasia argument. In the section "Extent of continents", the article reads and the term "continent of Australia" may refer to the mainland of Australia, excluding Tasmania.. I live in Tasmania and this terminology is never used. The term used is "the mainland" or "mainland Australia". "Continent of Australia" describes the area described in Australia (continent) (ie. Australia, including Tasmania, and New Guinea). -- Chuq 09:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chuq, can you supply a verifiable source in support of your claim that the term "continent of Australia" is correctly used to describe the area you mention? If you can, then we can stick with the status quo and save ourselves the bother of making changes. Viewfinder 10:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. Australia (continent)? Just to clarify - I'm not arguing between the definitions of "Australia" or "Australia plus New Guinea" or "Australia plus New Guinea plus Pacific Islands" - I am arguing that it DOES include Tasmania. From a quick google search, the following links agree with this: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] In fairness I should point out the following link disagrees: [7] but I believe it to be wrong. "Australian mainland" is the only term that I have heard used. -- Chuq 11:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

These links, in multiple contradiction with each other, show a variety of definitions. The third (US government) includes New Zealand; the fourth includes New Guinea also, but they may be an adequate citation of the claim that Australia (continent) CAN be used to refer to a larger area than the mainland or mainland plus Tasmania. What does Nurg think about these? Our status quo is that Australia (continent) DOES cover a wider area, I still don't think that is tenable. Viewfinder 12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am copying this section to Talk:Australia (continent) in order to hold the discussion together. Viewfinder 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ishtar and Aphrodite?

Aren't Ishtar Terra and Aphrodite Terra considered continents of Venus?

Middle East as a separate continent

In a couple of discussions (online and on campus) recently, I've run into references to a movement (cultural? academic? scientific?) to recognize the Middle East as a continent separate from Asia. I came here to see if there was a neutral discussion of such a movement... if anyone is more knowledgable than me regarding such a movement, I think it'd be an interesting addition to the article. Student Driver 15:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

North America fork

Hello! I encourage editors involved in this discussion to comment and weigh on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas), a recent fork of North America. Thanks! Corticopia 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Again ...

Thanks to those who commented on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way (and the article has been deleted), this has reared its ugly head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete review of North America (region)

Administrator took a dubious decision. The result should have been no concensus. This deleted article was about the region of the Americas named "North America". All of the other regions within the Americas under the various geographical models to divide it, have their own article: Middle America (Americas), Central America, Northern America, Caribbean and South America. Please, read carefully the AfD page and the reasons provided to undelete the article. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he did not -- an apparent consensus of 65% did support the action; see AfD review comments. Corticopia 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Subcontinents of America (single continent model)

Tectonic plates of the Americas

When America is considered a single continent, it is also divided in three subcontinents (North, Central, South). Subcontinents are created due to the fact they lie in their own tectonic plate. This is the case of the Americas, and its 3 subcontinents:

• North America: North American Plate (small portions of California and Baja California are in the Cocos Plate, see map)
• Central America: Caribbean Plate
• South America: South American Plate

I added back the info (deleted by user Corticopia) and added a source, but he deleted it again. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but in no way is the definition of any continent dependent on the nature of any tectonic plate. If this were true, then the entire west half of the Atlantic Ocean basin would be part of the North American Continent, which it is not. Continents are defined geographically, and conventionally, and do not relate to the boundaries of tectonic plates. Tectonic plates include continents and oceanic basin; continents are defined in different ways, mostly by convention and as land areas only. Cheers Geologyguy 00:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment. I was not saying the Americas are 3 different continents. I was just saying that in the section "Other continents", America (as in the single continent model) is also divided into three subcontinents. This has nothing to do with continents. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, but subcontinents are not defined on the basis of tectonic plates either. Your South American subcontinent happens to lie upon the South American Tectonic Plate, as does the west half of the South Atlantic Ocean, which is surely not part of the South American continent or subcontinent. Likewise, there are certainly many who would include the political subdivisions, Belize and Guatemala in Central America - but Belize and about the northern half of Guatemala do not lie on the Caribbean Plate. I'm not arguing (I don't care) about the definitions of continents or subcontinents - those are geographical distinctions and/or conventions. My only point is that it does not relate to the definitions of tectonic plates. Cheers - Geologyguy 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, G.: the original argument is rather moot; if that were the case, for example, a large chunk of Siberia (Eur/asia) would be part of North America. This perhaps stems from a confusion between the notions of what are continents (in numerous interpretations), tectonic plates, cratons, and sub/regions.

For this article in the least, though, we should care about definitions for continents. Speaking of which: NO reliable sources have been provided to indicate that Central America is a continent or subcontinent(e) -- Encarta references in English and Spanish only indicate CA is a "región del continente americano" ('region of the American continent') and "que es definida por los geógrafos como parte de América del Norte" ('which is defined by geographers as part of North America') -- so the prior assertion saying otherwise was incorrect anyway. The references were retained, AC, but your (false) interpretations of them were not. Corticopia 15:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all Corticopia, I never said CA is a "continent", I know for a fact it is not, so save your usual verbose talking. Secondly, I am only speaking about the continent America and the continuous lands it comprises, lands that within the continent rest in different plates, so some geographers used this fact to delimits the subcontinents of America. I'm aware of the "sources", and I know for a fact that Central America is considered a subcontinent, so I guess I'll just add some sources. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No: you're saying it's a subcontinent, which is unsupported by the sources you added, so stop your incessant POV-pushing and sophistry here and elsewhere. We don't care what you 'know', AlexCovarrubiass; all editions (reliably sourced and not) will be scrutinized. Corticopia 18:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bla bla bla... you and your verbose (and useless) talk. Do you really think somebody pays you attention? I mean, I know YOU pay me attention (Jesus! You even have my contribution page watched and you have admitted it!) That's why I said "I guess I'll just add some sources", period. Fortunately, more editors are now aware of your biased edits, not only me anymore. :) AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-aggrandizement and warbling notwithstanding, I see no one coming to your aid. Add your reliable sources and contribute, or STFU and get lost. Corticopia 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Animated map of Continental Models

User Corticopia is deleting and moving down the animated map of continental models I just created. This is highly POV, because days ago he was deleting another map created by another user, saying it was a "duplicated" image (but it was not, it showed another continental model, the 5 continents I think). Now, he's doing what he was critizing: adding the static 7 continent image at the top, and movig down the animated continental models map. It is a "duplicated" map.

However, this article is about the "continents", not about the "7 continents model" only, so placing an animated map showing all the continental models is the best NPOV (neutral) practice. The information on Wikipedia must be presented in a netural way, and it must not favor or create the ilusion one POV is the correct or the best.

Based in Wikipedia rules, I'm gonna place the animated map at the top again, as I originally did. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a great animated map; I've suggested enhancements on your talk page. I have not deleted anything: I have simply moved the animated GIF down to be inline with the content of the article (the lead specifically lists the 7 continents) and listing of the various models below (in the appropriate section). Content must be dealt with equitably (not necessarily equally) -- in English, per the sources listed, the 7-continent model is prevalent (see below). The issues with the other map dealt with inappropriately giving equal weight to the 5-continent model and the erroneous matching of IOC flag colours to continents (the colours represent the five colours in country flags, not one-for-one matching of continents). These are not issues in the animated map and I am not wholly resistant to that image being upfront, though, but issues remain, particularly ...

I see no such advocacy regarding neutrality in either the Spanish or Portuguese Wikipedias regarding this ... but I nonetheless added those references to this article. Nor have reliable sources in English been presented to corroborate this assertion (which I do not necessarily doubt). Again, my edit equilibrates the content, while the animated GIF upfront may eschew it. I will await other editorial opinions before jumping to conclusions; in absentia, I will restore the prior equitable layout. Corticopia 00:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The animated map is netural, and both the map and the continents table could be presented from the 5 continents to the 7, instead it is presented from the 7 continents to the 5. Why? obviously to present first the english-speaking view on the matter, which seems natural to me. The map I created is wholly based on this article, so the 7 continents model is presented first, as it should be. I don't actively contribute to the Wikipedias in Spanish or Portuguese, but if you are so concerned about the "equitably" there, then you should go and edit. There are several english speakers that also speak portuguese or spanish, so I think that the only missing thing here is willigness or desire to do it. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you're trying to say regarding 5 to 7, 7 to 5 -- in English, the 7-continent model is prevalent and reliably sourced, while others may not be or are less so. Also note that no reliable sources (save the IOC, if that) have been added to corroborate that point of view in English.

Relatedly, the sequence in the GIF is logical, but my concerns about having it upfront remain. The animated GIF deserves to appear below, to be inline with the listing of multiple models (so as not to confuse). The other rendition -- which includes a non-descript, unlabelled, static image upfront with different but similar colours (e.g., greens for America; consult its key/description) -- IS also neutral, but also more equitable (since it's fairly non-descript, though the caption can be tweaked). As well, I do not actively contribute to the other Wikipedias but can, but that's a digression -- I defer to my prior comments and await added editorial input. Corticopia 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I still have concerns about the undue weight placed on other models in this GIF, as opposed to the prevalent model in English containing 7 or 6 continents (as those sources may note Eurasia, not necessarily America). Relatedly, the 6-continent Eurasia model should appear 2nd in sequence, whereas the other does now.

In any event, I have changed the image caption and added context ... but also reserve the right to re-establish the prior arrangement to maintain an equitable presentation of information in this article. Corticopia 01:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuation

Again, the map is the best NPOV to the issue and no body opposed it, except for Corticopia. He "corrected" it to show "Australia" instead of "Oceania", even if the debate is still not ended (see below). However, I'm willing to accept that for now, as a contention. So I'm reverting the changes he made. Also the table with the color codes for the different continental models is reverted, the color tags give a better understanding to the map. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And you have been reverted -- your arguments are senseless. This discussion has been dormant -- effectively ended -- almost three days ago, with your arguments disproven. The table with colour tags is both redundant (since the coloured, animated map above the table clearly exhibits these colours with labels) and the tags take up unnecessary space horizontally, giving no better understanding of the topic than the current arrangement. If the (unlabelled) map is the "best NPOV", then the unlabelled map (with legend in back-end) upfront conforms to that, and the animated one with labels below further satisfies that and exhibits all models. In addition, you are clearly contradicting yourself, since you claim the map is the "best NPOV" and then you removed it -- it was I who (tweaked and) re-added the animated map and placed it. And until someone else weighs in, that as they say is that. Corticopia 09:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In my revert, the static map is next to the color-coded table, as in many other Wikipedias. The animated labelled map, the best NPOV solution, is well above: in the introductory paragraph. The animated map should remain in the header, since it is the best NPOV solution, it presents ALL the EQUALLY VALID continental models. Since its introduction, nobody oppossed it, only Corticopia. Revert if you want, just keep in mind the 3RR... AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 09:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As you previously said, the other Wikipedias likely lack someone who has the ability or willpower to create a complex, animated map, hence the tags-in-table approach -- I do not oppose the animated map, but it should merely be placed near to the table upon which it is based and which readers can easily compare to. And I'm sure you'll have a field day when trying to demonstrate also that the unlabelled, static map -- which existed for months in the article before you came along -- is anything but NPOV, since it was created by others for the sole purpose of equitably reflecting reckonings of continents around the world (and in different languages). Again, you're self-contradictory: you claim your animated map is NPOV and then YOU completely removed it from the article -- I put it back in. And regarding 3RR: pot, meet kettle. Corticopia 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory? Never. Remember the animated map had a label that read "Oceania" instead of Australia, an issue still on debate. So, as a point of contention, I deleted the animated map and created a color-coded table (with Australia, not Oceania). So, it is not contradictory. It was an honest try to debate in a good faith. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 09:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not. You are being contradictory -- you obviously created the map, and then are either unwilling or unable to revise it (replacing Oceania with Australia)? I do have the means, and merely changed the animated map to reflect the table ... which you seem to not only disagree with but revised with Australia. With the updated labelled animated map, the cumbersome colour-coded table really serves no purpose. All points of view are fairly represented (and one can make an argument that the non-7 models are now being given undue weight given the relative number of sources that say 7). So, again, what's the problem? And this discussion has been dormant for almost three days: others can weigh in as before and I have no fundamental problem discussing items ad infinitum when arguments are sensibly made, but I believe this discussion can't go further. Corticopia 09:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The static map is also part of the animated map (the first frame), so it is also redundant now. If you say the color-coded table was a waste of space, then the redundant static map is also a waste of space. What is the reason to have it? It can be just deleted, or replaced with a another picture, for example, the satellite. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 09:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh -- exactly: you are truly being argumentative and not making sense. The unlabelled static map is only the base for the animated, multiframe labelled map, so they're not at all redundant -- you also didn't argue this beforehand when supporting the animated map above and unlabelled one below. We are talking about continents, so coloured maps that clearly exhibit that concept are not at all a waste of space. In its basic form, the table is useful and not redundant (since it clearly organises and exhibits information), but adding colour tags to it is rather pointless since the animated map right above exhibits the colours and concepts (with labels). The satellite map you previously added is redundant and doesn't clearly demonstrate anything, since the composite-Dymaxion map in the article underneath the lead image already does this. Really, this is getting circular. Corticopia 09:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the static map and the colour coded table are the most useful for "encyclopaedic purposes" - they're the most directly useful as a reference, since you don't have to sit around playing with yourself waiting for the gif to change, and can take your time to examine in. The animated GIF enhances "readability" and makes the article funner or something. Even though they're the same, they're not redundant - oddly enough. I actually like this version, although the map next to the table is too small.

Corticopia raises a good point in that the animated GIF givesa undue weight to none-seven continent models, like an article on gravity giving equal time to General Relativity and MOND. But I think the issue is that we're stuck with maps not being able to reflect this well. Maybe we just need more of an effort in the text to say In reality, there are seven continents. Almost everyone accepts this, although there are exceptions. For instance, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Dave Barry noted any idiot with a map can see Europe and Asia are on the same continent. Or whatever. Map wise, animated in the lead, colour coded table with the static map partway down seems best. WilyD 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. OK. For those same reasons, that's why I believe the unlabelled static image should be first. By its very design, it simply (and I believe effectively) reflects various viewpoints -- it shows 7 continents (also reflected in the article lead) but simultaneously exhibits 6 or 5 too (if grouping together areas with like colours), without delving too much into the issue, and has an explanatory caption (e.g., the Barry notion regarding Eurasia). Everything is then expanded upon with the animated GIF/table combo below; note the various continental models are dealt with in the 'Extent' section and elsewhere, also. During this time (and if the reader wasn't playing with oneself in the interim :)), the GIF bown below would've loaded already and, in sequence, matches the table it is adjacent to.

If we again swap the images -- which I do not oppose but don't prefer given the undue weight placed on non-7 notions in the animated GIF when placed upfront -- we can easily arrange items appropriately: i.e., centering the static map just above colour-tagged-or-not table. I believe the colour tags make such a table cumbersome but not as much so if the image is placed atop and not beside the table (which looks fine on my 1680x1050 monitor, but may crash at lower resolutions), but do not oppose including them if the consensus supports it. I hope this makes sense. Corticopia 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your NPOV concerns, but I think here we have to let readability and functionality reign supreme - that's all. In the end, almost everyone who reads the encyclopaedia already knows there are seven continents anyhow ... WilyD 16:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, readability and functionality are improved with the static map and the color-tagged table together. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK: no problem. Remember though that the article is for the benefit of people who may also not know the number and extent of continents. I stil maintain that the other version is just as readable and functional (Cyberjunkie, upon request, is indifferent), but I'll make the changes. Thanks for weighing in. :) Corticopia 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also don't see anything wrong with the current version, which I feel is superior to Willy's preferred version. From a readability standpoint, I think readers will find the animated map far more useful when situated next to the table. I also don't like the clutter of two images in the intro, which is un-necessary considering one is substantially the same as the another, and Image:Dymaxion map unfolded-no-ocean.png can suffice. --cj | talk 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made changes that at least three of us somewhat agree on: animated upfront, static below, colour-tagged table. Cyberjunkie: I also like the animated map and table in close proximity below, but the static and Dymaxion maps in place (i.e., I believe none are redundant, as I've maintained throughout; I take issue more with the order and flow of content). So, in that case, I would propose to merely move the Dymaxion map down to a lower section, 2nd from top, where the continuity and extent of continents is dealt with ... and have only one image upfront (static map preferred, but animated possible) and the other down below. If animated below (preferred), no colour tags; if static below, colour tags (?) Thoughts? Corticopia 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the animated map upfront, static map and color-tagged table, below. I have no preference for the Dymaxion map. I oppose using the animated map plus the simple table: animated map is only to present the different models, static map and color-coded table are better to understand and efficiently compare the models. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wily, of course I agree with you in almost all of what you said. The static map and the color-coded table are a good solution since you can easily read it and, as you said, not to wait for the animated map to change. Since my first introduction of color-coded table, I placed the static map centered above the table, check the edit history [8]. About the animated map, I created it in order to present all of the continental models in a very, and I believe the best, NPOV way. The only thing I don't agree with you is that of "it gives the other models an undue weight". Those models may not be common in some countries, but they are equally valid and have scientific bases. I don't think that presenting, for example, the 6 or 5 continents models is giving it undue weight, since all of Latin America and parts of Europe use it, so a considerable amount of human beings also uses this model. NPOV policy says that facts must not be presented in a way suggesting some POV as being the truth and that all the POV are to be presented, not only the most popular one. I found an interesting article about the continents. According to it, the 5 continents model was the most common even in the United States, until World War II, when its foreign politics changed [9]. Well, however, I'm glad we agree with the layout the page should have. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: you agree, yet you provide a link to the version which rather contradicts your stance, with a horrid (and redundant) satellite composite and just the static map below. Many versions are at play, though I believe I crafted the version which was preferred and noted above (animated map upfront, static map below next to colour-tagged table, later tweaked), you later reverted to it. Not all things are equal. Anyhow ... Corticopia 14:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The link is for Wily to see that I supported the idea of the static map centered above the table since my first edit. Actually, my first edit had the animated map in the header as you can see here, but minutes later, as I already have expressed, I decided to remove it because it said "Oceania" and we had a debate going on at the moment. So I created that version Wily agrees with, but that's not important.

• 01:30, 28 March 2007 AlexCovarrubias (→Number of continents - Adding colored map with color codes for each continental model)
• 01:33, 28 March 2007 AlexCovarrubias (Satellite composed image of the continents)

However, I agree with Wily because his proposed layout is exactly the one I had in mind initially. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Had in mind? OK: you supported it, and then changed your mind, which is not atypical (and have since changed the link) And you have clearly (confusingly) removed the static map on more than one occasion ... Again, not all things are equal: the proposed version was arrived at through incremental edits. Yes: it is 'not important' who originated what, but your waffling behaviour is perplexing. Anyhow ... Corticopia 15:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I never changed my mind about what I originally wanted for the article. I always wanted the same layout Wily agrees with. It is just that, in a disputed page, you can't always edit the way you want. So I thought that removing the animated map from the lead, that said "Oceania", was a good edit to show willigness to debate. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Corticopia 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oceania not the same as Australia

FACTS

The 5 continents model (mainly used in Latin America, Spain, Italy and other parts of Europe) considers the following as continents: America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania.

The current table of continental models, lists "Australia" in the 5 contients model, which is not only inaccurate, but totally wrong. In the 5 continents model, the term used is Oceania.

Australia and Oceania are different, not symnetrical concepts:

• Australia (continent): comprises Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.
• Oceania: comprises Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and "a set of islands that extends in the Pacific, and it is divided in 4 large sectors: Australasia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia". (Océano Uno, Diccionario Enciclopédico y Atlas Mundial, page 1755, ISBN 84-494-0188-7)

I edited the article several times to add "Oceania" in the 5 continents model only, but user Corticopia kept reverting it. The article mentions in a small note that "Oceania" may be used instead of Australia, but that is not accurate, because (again), those are not symmetrical terms and comprise different lands.

WHAT TO DO

Both terms comprise a different territory, then the most logical and accurate (not to mention simple) solution is to include Oceania, the term actually used in that continental model. You can check es:Oceania and pt:Oceania to see what I am talking about (already included as references in the "explanatory" note)

REFERENCES
Sources defining Oceania as a continent

• Océano UNO, "Oceanía", page 1755, ISBN 84-494-0188-7
• Encarta México, "Oceanía" [10]
• World Atlas [11]
• CIA World Facts [12]

However, I also saw a reference to the Atlas of Canada [13], but I don't know how often "Oceania" is used instead of "Australia" in the english speaking world. What I know for a fact and will add the references, is that "Australia" is never used in the 5 continents model.

According to Corticopia, the reason for his reverts was the "lack of sources". Now that I have a source, I guess he will stop reverting. I understand I didn't initially provide a source, but I have been contributing with Wikipedia for more than a year, and I wouldn't edit an article to introduce false information, where is the Assume Good Faith policy? However, as I said, I have a source now. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. Firstly, Australia includes all of the island of New Guinea, as well as smaller islands surrounding it. Secondly, there are 5 continent models which name Australia; it is not exclusive to Oceania.--cj | talk 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CJ, I have never seen an article about the 5 continents naming Australia instead of Oceania. I guess it is because both areas comprise different territories. However, would you mind providing a source please? The 5 continents model is used primarily in Latin America, Spain, Portugual and other parts of Europe. I have read about it in spanish and portugues, and I have never seen "Australia" instead of Oceania. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Alex, the problem is that this makes the table needlessly confusing. Australia is the usual English word for the continent, Oceania is an occasionally used synonym - so Australia is generally preferable. Labelling an identical region with different names to reflect the customs of the different models just makes the table needlessly confusing, because it makes it harder to compare the models - the essential reason the table exists. WilyD 04:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But you are entirely ignoring the fact that the continental concepts of Australia and Oceania are not the same. Both terms comprise different areas, they are not synonims. According to the article Australia (continent) and the Atlas of Canada (for example) [14], they are not synonims, because they comprise different lands. Also, this is not a matter of what "term" is used in "what" language, but about accuracy: simply Australia is not the same as Oceania. They are both treated separately, both concepts have their own article, both continents are included in the template continents of the world. As you said, the table is to compare the models, and certainly Australia and Oceania are comparable terms, with the difference that the latter comprises a larger territory. They are comparable terms, very similar, but not synonims that justifies the replacement of one for another. Please note that I am just talking about the 5 continents model. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 05:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explicitly says Australia the continent and Oceania are not the same? As far as I can tell, every continent name applies to an area that isn't always defined the same way - the Atlas of Canada is a great example because it uses a non-standard definition of Europe (it doesn't include any of Kazakhstan in Europe, while the European Community and most other sources do) .... WilyD 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wily, now you're being irrational. If a source defines Australia as comprising a determined territory and Oceania a different one, then it is logical that they are not the same. It is like saying apples and oranges may be the same thing if no source explicitly say they are not. The definition of each term determines if they are/are not the same. In any case, you'd also need to provide a source indicating they are the same, if the sources I provide defines them as different concepts. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Randomly:

1. [15] Australia includes the Pacific Islands but not New Guinea
2. [xttp://www.mapsofworld.com/images/world-continents-map.jpg] Australia includes the Pacific Islands and half of New Guinea
3. [16] Australia includes the Pacific Islands and half of New Guinea
4. [17] Australia includes the Pacific Islands and half of New Guinea
5. [18] Oceania includes the Pacific Islands and half of New Guinea (note this matches a common definition for Australia)
6. [19] Australia includes the Pacific Islands but none of New Guinea
7. [20] Oceania includes the Pacific Islands and all of New Guinea
8. [21] Australia includes the Pacific Islands and all of New Guinea (identical to the above Oceania
9. [22] Oceania includes the Pacific Islands and none of New Guinea
10. [23] Australia includes the Pacific Islands and all of New Guinea
11. [24] Oceania includes the Pacific Islands and half of New Guinea

Conclusion Australia and Oceania both invariably include Australia (country), New Zealand and the Pacific Islands in normal usage. The status of of New Guinea (and a few other islands of Indonesia) is not well defined, both Australia and Oceania may include some, all or none of New Guinea. Alex, if you're curious about what's going on, I can tell you (though I'm not sure I'd ever be able to source it). Oceania is just a politically correct alternative to Australia - the words have identical meaning as continents - Australia is obviously overloaded. WilyD 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think about those maps about Australia. I've seen definitions about Australia that doesn't include the Pacific Islands and yet colored them in the map as part of the continent. Seems like a common issue. For example, Encarta [25] when you look for Australia continent, they don't mention the islands and yet color them in the "continents" map. Another of your sources "Mapsofworld.com", color the Pacific island and don't include them in the "Australia Continent Political Map" [xttp://www.mapsofworld.com/australia-political-map.htm] and also notable, the category is called "Australia and Oceania" [xttp://www.mapsofworld.com/australia-and-oceania/]. Other example is "Nationsonline.org", that in fact uses the 5 continents including Oceania, and then uses it as a synonim of Australia, but in the list of countries uses the traditional subdivision of Oceania. The biggest problem is the source "Infomine.com", that is clearly not talking about continents, but about their own divisions of whatever they are, at least that you believe Chile, Brasil, UK, Turkey and China are the new names of new continents. However, Wily, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one that also ask for reliable sources? I think those sites (except Encarta.com) don't seem to fall in the category of reliable sources (Quoting "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand"). I believe it would be better to see descriptions/definitions (as you asked me) of Australia as a continent from reputable sources, not only maps. And again, I'm not trying to change the whole table, I'm only adding Oceania in the model whose sources indicate it. After all, it is a comparative table, and certainly Oceania and Australia are comparable terms, almost comprising the same territory, but definitely not the same (for what we've seen until now). AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some reputable references: (excluding Wikipedia) three note Australia as a continent, one notes Australasia (Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea).

And, yet you've provided four to substantiate your argument: one of which (CIA) definitely does NOT indicate Oceania is a continent (only that Australia is part of Oceania, matching other common reckonings per WilyD), another which may also be of limited authority (WorldAtlas), and two in Spanish. As for Encarta, FWIW, the following is revealed when translating the Spanish 'Australia' article

• Australia (nombre oficial, Commonwealth of Australia, Australia), Estado de Oceanía situado al sureste de Asia, entre los océanos Índico, al oeste y sur, y Pacífico, al este. La isla de Australia forma, junto con la vecina de Tasmania, la Commonwealth de Australia .... Esta gran isla continental limita con varios mares que constituyen brazos de los grandes océanos antes mencionados ...

into English:

• Australia (official name, Commowealth of Australia), state of Oceanía located southeast of Asia, between the Indian Oceans, to the west and the south, and Pacific, to the east. The island of Australia forms, with neighbouring Tasmania, the Commonwealth of Australia .... This great continental island is bounded by several seas and constituent arms of the great oceans mentioned earlier ...

And regarding the Spanish references/Latin American model: before you try to point out what may appear obvious from Encarta et al., note that Oceanía translates not to the (presumably) equivalent "Oceania" -- as you maintain -- but to "The Australian Continent": try it and again.

So, AC, your original and subsequent arguments -- that Oceanía equals Oceania but not Australia -- are not only moot but wrong too, and the proposed table edits are subjective and inaccurate. (Relatedly, the animated maps should change too; I'll do this shortly.) I otherwise defer to my prior arguments and that, as they say, is that. So, how do you like 'em ... apples? Corticopia 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, don't confuse the things, because I have never said or tried to prove "Australia is not a continent", so a source reckoning Australia as one of the continents is irrelevant: we all know Australia is the name of a continent in english. More importantly, those sources fail to describe the territories comprised by Australia (as a continent). Second, just to remind you (and the possible readers) that I'm not suggesting to switch from Australia to Oceania in the table, but only in the model it is explicitly noted by the source (5 continents).

Also, a translation to prove "Oceania equals Australia" is just subjective and doubious, since translations are about the usage of the terms or as explaing them so the people can understand, they don't have to pay attention to the scientific differences that might exist. It is perfectly understandable that translation machine uses "Australian continent" instead of Oceania (from Spanish to English), since it is most commonly used. But let's go beyond. What if we translate "the Australian Continent" from English to Spanish? It translates it as "el continente Australiano". And what if we translate "Oceania" from English to Spanish? It simply translates it as "Oceanía" (with an accent in the i). But don't belive me, go Try it! and Try it!. As everybody can see, using a translation machine to "prove" one term is exactly the same as the other is not "only moot and subjective but wrong". If I say "that car's so cool" in english, no one will ever translate it as "el carro está muy frío", but instead as "ese coche está chido" in Mexican spanish or "ese auto está chévere" in Venezuelan spanish.

However, the best practice is we must follow the scientific definition of each term. So far, the sources indicate Oceania is a different thing from Australia as a continent, since both comprise different territories. You both have failed to provide a reliable source that can show the territories comprised by Australia are the same comprised by Oceania (according to your argumentation). AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The absolutely do not. They indicate that Australia and Oceania have imprecise and unagreed upon definitions, but for any instance of a definition of Oceania, you can find someone who defines the same region as Australia, and for any definition of Australia, you can find someone calling the same area Oceania. Does the fact that I could find three different definitions of Oceania mean there are really 3 different seven continent models? Or six different ones given that Panama south of the canal is variably included in either North America or South America? And so on? No - this isn't the case. Our available source do not show a difference between Australia and Oceania - one source for Oceania may disagree with another source for Australia, but one source for Oceania may disagree with another source for Oceania - which means the first point is inconclusive. WilyD 14:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Wily, let's move on, if you insist Australia and Oceania are sometimes described as comprising the same territory, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide reliable sources describing the Australian Contient territory that way. So far, I haven't seen such sources. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh. The premise of your original argument has been proven to be moot -- if not confusing, now circular, and senseless -- and part of an attempt to eschew content in favour of YOUR (and yours alone) point of view regarding content, corroborated by few if no reliable sources. Remember: denial is in the continent coloured yellow in the maps -- the burden of proof is on you. And significantly reframing the article to suit your viewpoint -- as was recently done in the middle of this discussion (which will be judiciously corrected) -- doesn't change that and is objectionable. Moreover, your sense of entitlement or possession regarding content -- which, when in Wikipedia, doesn't belong to you and can be edited at will -- is laughable. Corticopia 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Proved?. That's hasty. I don't see any reliable source indicating or describing the Australian Continent as comprising the same territory of Oceania. If you're both so sure about it, then it shouldn't be that hard to source it. And as usual, your verbose talk trying to give the wrong impression. The changes I made were only: deletion of the animated map I created and replacing it with a satellite composed image of the continents from NASA. I Added back the old static colored-map, and added color tags to the already existent comparative table of continental models. Both changes where inspired in the article in German and French that are very NPOV, oh and I also implemented the same changes in the Spanish Wikipedia. So I didn't "significantly reframed" anything. Thanks God people can check the history of the article and corroborate this [26]. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for. If you want to show that Oceania is defined differently than Australia is defined, clearly you're boned, for that's simply not the case. For any definition of the continent of Oceania, I can easily find a definition of the continent of Australia that includes the identical pieces of land. If you want me to provide a reference that says Oceania is another name for Australia I may be able to, but like Dogs are not a kind of pudding this is a hard statement to source because its so obvious that people rarely articulate it. WilyD 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No Wily, I think sources indicating the territory comprised by Australia are enough, so we can compare it with the one indicated for Oceania. It is absolutely not necessary to find a source that explicitly say "Australia is the same as Oceania". I see your point. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a retard. I found the first google hit is the World Atlas which treats them as synonyms. [27] - Jeez, I knew it was true and obvious, but I thought it'd be more work than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Hasty? This circular and pointless discussion -- which you initiated -- has already gone on for far too long. You first initiate a discussion without a clear aim and despite equitable content in the article covering various points of view (repeatedly stated), and then present sources to back your subjective edits. When you fail to compel (through misinterpretation of source matter and/or fallacious arguments), you then reframe the article when you can't compel or prove your point and then bounceback requests for sources to protract the discussion -- a number of sources have already been provided to corroborate our positions and reasoning (others already in the article), which needn't agree with yours. You initiated this discussion, and unless someone else objects or something new arises, I am ending it (at least my involvement in it). Corticopia 19:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My objective is and always have been clear, read the first message under the line "What to do". Sure you can exclude yourself from the discussion if that's what you want, but you can certainly not "end" it. I'll just ignore your verbose and sometimes false talk (reframing info? see the message above [28]) from now on (unless they are about sources). AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Then, as now, your objective and arguments are unclear and exasperating and edits questionable. After all: if one doesn't feed a fire, it dies out. Corticopia 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to make this clear to you Alex - I reject Rationallity where it conflicts with Empiricism. Turns out Wikipedia does to - empirical facts are easy to attribute. Our own reasoning isn't. WilyD 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons why you were reverted -- otherwise, I agree with WilyD. Even in English, the notions of Oceania and Australia (continent, country, or otherwise) are not symmetrical ones, so the original argument regarding this particular model is rather moot. The former is generally used to refer to the wider region usu. including Australia (and the Océano Uno ref doesn't seem to indicate anything different, just as the CIA Fact Book reference merely states that Australia is just in Oceania without noting it's a continent); it is also infrequently used to refer to one of the 7 continents in English (e.g., Atlas of Canada). Anyhow, various points of view about this are clearly accommodated for in the 'Extent' section (which also notes Australasia) and in the note down below the table. Said table edits needlessly confuse the issue. And (previously) no reliable sources were provided to corroborate these assertions, despite repeated requests. (Please note I added links to the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias, so you know what they say about making erroneous assumptions.) So, until a consensus and sources support these subjective edits, edits will be made to equilibrate or correct for content in this article and elsewhere. Corticopia 13:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you should read better, because I'm not proposing changing the concept of Australia in all the models, just in the 5 continents model. As you said, Australia and Oceania are not symmetrical terms (which is also my point) so they cannot be used one instead of another. The source I provide clearly indicate Oceania for the 5 continents models and since Australia comprises a smaller area (as you said, Australia is part of the wider region of Oceania), then it should be changed in order to preserve accuracy. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I and others have read you fine -- you seem to not understand the point of a comparative table, nor do you seem to grasp that these inequities of opinions are already accommodated for elsewhere in the article ... as stated previously how many times? Corticopia 13:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As well, another related issue, given recent edits (see above): if a consensus does support labelling this model as Oceania, then the animated GIF must be moved next to the table below, with the original static, unlabelled map (which actually has a legend, indicating Australia/Oceania) in its place. Otherwise, this gives undue weight to models rather unsourced and uncommmon in English. The colours provide for various points of view already, and should promote clarity since a visitor can easily match the coloured model with the table (the caption can remain unchanged). Anyhow ...Corticopia 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a whole different issue, with a separate debate. However, the animated map can always be mofified, I'm en expert in that :) AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )}06:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oceania is the same as Australia

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)

Are those really WP:reliable sources? Because in other cases I've been told they are not, and following the description of reliable sources in the WP policy article, they don't seem to be. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't spend a ton of time checking them out. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, per WP:RS, but extremely unspectacular claims don't require particularly good sources. As I guessed earlier, straightforward statements are often the hardest to source. Above, I provided a bunch of definitions for the areas at random, which showed the same properties, as far as I could tell. WilyD 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wily, there is no need to provide extraordinary sources. We just need a reliable source that defines Australia's territory. Then we can compare it with the territory of Oceania. As I said above, there's no need to find a source that explicitly say Aus = Oceania. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Different sources give different definitions in both cases. My earlier list above shows complete overlap between the two for all definitions - if you don't like a source, fine, but I'm sure we can work out something - the gimage search was just the easiest way to find continent definitions. WilyD 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag of the Olympic Movement.svg

Okay, so now goes the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. How does Image:Flag of the Olympic Movement.svg meet the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria? Particularly, I would like to reasons regarding WP:FUC#8 and WP:FUC#10. --Iamunknown 04:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Order of the continents

I like what has been done to the table at Continent#Continental Models ... except for one thing. Besides making the table much prettier at 7:30 am GMT on the 28th of March 2007 Alex Covarrubias changed the order of the continents. Perhaps it's no big issue but one does why. When the table was created it had the following order Antarctica, South America, North America, Europe, Asia, Africa then Australia. The logic: this order followed the order of the Dymaxion map featured (then and now) on the article. Now we have another map better fitting our purpose but this new map does not suggest any new ordering of the continents ... does it? So why North America, South America, Antarctic, Asia, Europe, Africa then Australia? Alex, you are from North America, does this have anything to do with anything? The editor who originally turned an ugly list into a table put the continent he was from last. Alex, I like what you've done to the table but am puzzled as to your reordering. Jimp 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Australasia

How about the definition that counts Australia as an island in Australasia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dojarca (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

The Australian mainland is an island in Australasia but Australasia includes New Zealand which is not on the Australian continental shelf therefore is not a continent. Jimp 00:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Australia is probably the most common name of the continent, but does anyoner have a verifiable source? WilyD 03:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Zealandia and the Kerguelen continent

Should the article have anything about the two submerged continents Zealandia [32] and the Kerguelen continent [33]? I added some infomation about those two continent a few mounts ago, but it seems like someone deleted it. The world has 7 noticeable continents and 2 continents that arn't very noticeable, making 9 continents worldwide. Black Tusk 04:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, the Kerguelen Plateau is not remotely continental, neither in size (the article's statement that it is one-third the size of Australia would make it about the size of Greenland, but looking at the bathymetry suggests that that is being very generous) nor in terms of the bulk of its composition. A bit of continental material in the midst of an oceanic large igneous province does not a continent make, and in my opinion even mentioning this here would be extremely misleading. Cheers Geologyguy 21:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Zealandia would seem to have a better case for inclusion though. It is made primarily of continental material, and is probably also continental in length if not in area. I might be biased, though, since I live there. Arguments against mentioning it in this article include size (less than half the area of Australia) and the lack of a stable craton - its crust is relatively young, with little over 500 million years old. -- Avenue 00:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't being a splinter of Gondwanaland count for anything? I don't know where Kerguelen falls, but Zealandia surely is continental, if not a 'continent'. kwami 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Kerguelen is also a splinter of Gondwanaland. However, I have herd that the Kerguelen Plateau is not being study alot, due to its remoteness, so it could be possible it might contain some continental material. Black Tusk 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The Kerguelen Plateau very likely contains at least a small continental fragment - but so does the island of Sumba, south of the Java Trench. "Continental" and "continent" have remarkably different meanings - at least to me. Cheers Geologyguy 02:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've listed Zealandia as a microcontinent in the Geology section. It seems to fit the definition there well enough. -- Avenue 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Geologyguy, what besides Kerguelen and Sumba is continental? I've never been able to get a straight answer to that question. kwami 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a terrane? Pfly 08:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean, which islands and submarine plateaus are continental? Is Jamaica? etc. kwami 09:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my view there is a lot of subjectivity and semantics involved - do island arc materials, which are relatively low density and will ultimately be accreted to continents count as continental? Some use the cop-out phrase "transistional crust" but if one had to choose oceanic or continental, most island arc terranes would be continental. That's perhaps why you've never gotten a straight answer - there is no truly cut and dried definition. Certainly, many large arc-related islands (Japan, Sumatra, Cuba, and others) contain one or more blocks that most would agree are of continental origin - probably, some tiny rifted fragment that later got caught up in oceanic plateau volcanism or arc volcanism or various collisions to produce the larger terranes we have today. I'm not an expert, but Zealandia is perhaps the largest submarine plateau complex that contains significant continental material - the Lord Howe Rise probably does have some, at least. But it is not a simple terrane and I suspect that calling it a continent is a serious oversimplification; certainly, to imply a continuous large submarine continent extending from New Zealand to New Caledonia is in my view misleading at best. The tectonic history of that area has been very complex and is poorly understood. But it's pretty much a fact that if you have extensive areas of typical continental crust, they must stand high because of their density contrast with the upper mantle etc., and that means, with few exceptions, that they will be subaerial. Thus deep-water terranes and bulges on the sea floor are pretty unlikely to be continental in the conventional definition. Hope this long-winded statement helps, though this is an argument that is so subjective I doubt there will ever be complete agreement, even among geoscientists. Cheers Geologyguy 13:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree that Zealandia has had a complex history. I'm not an expert either, but your other points about it don't seem entirely well-founded to me. Perhaps Talk:Zealandia would be a better place for that discussion though. Your point about density contrasts is a good one, particularly since you've given some qualifications like "typical" and "with few exceptions". I'm interested in the exceptions. -- Avenue 15:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I know enough to be definitive about all of these, but here are some speculations based on (I hope) reasonable scholarship. One exception would be parts of the Lord Howe Rise, specifically the central Lord Howe Platform, which seems likely to be a long narrow stretch of continental material rifted from Australia. One might compare it to the Seychelles - most of which would also be an exception in being a narrow band of likely continental material that is not subaerial. There's another sliver-like oceanic plateau, the Mozambique Plateau, which based on gravity is probably at least partly continental, but not even any small islets reach the surface. Rockall Bank, west of Scotland, barely reaches the surface at a tiny islet, but the bank itself is rather large and is probably continental. In the Arctic, the Lomonosov Ridge is almost certainly a long narrow sliver of continental material rifted from the Barents-Kara Sea continental shelf of Eurasia, rifted by the Nansen Ridge (the continuation of the Mid-Atlantic spreading center). The Lomonosov Ridge is around 1800 km long but rarely more than 100 km wide and is no shallower than about 500 m below sea level.

Those are exceptions in being probable continental material that is not subaerial, but I think all of them are not what I would call deep-water (say, more than 2000 meters). I don't know of any postulated continental masses in water that deep. Cheers Geologyguy 02:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Islands and the risk of original research

Of course, a continent can either be a landmass (or part of a landmass), or that landmass plus surrounding islands. I have no problem with that ambiguity, or with the first concept. The second one often leads to controversy on Wikipedia, though, because it is not obvious which islands "surround" a given continent. I think the most common definition is that an island is counted as part of the continent to whose mainland it is closest. But applying such a definition in Wikipedia leads to controversial results:

• Malta is in Africa (discussed at Template talk:Countries of Europe);
• Greece is a transcontinental country with many islands being in Asia (discussed at Talk:Transcontinental country and Template talk:Countries of Europe);
• the westernmost point of Europe is in the Azores (discussed at Talk:Extreme points of Europe).

The question is thus: should Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, agree on a definition and apply it in each case, with an obvious risk of this being original research, or should we require a citation for each attribution of an island to a continent? That is, can we decide, based on our definition, that Malta is in Africa, or do we need a reliable source saying that it is, and other reliable sources saying that it isn't, all in the spirit of NPOV? If we stop applying definitions of this kind, an article like Extreme points of Europe would probably shrink to being about the extreme points of the European mainland, and must be moved accordingly. But is that a bad thing? It removes ambiguity. -- Jao 09:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Great Oceania vs. Australia Debate

Hi Everyone

I love this these kinds of debates (such as those between AlexCov & others above), especially on a site like Wikipedia which relies on people questioning accuracy to remain a valid information source. I was a little disappointed with the arguments made against Alex as he was simply requesting some reliable sources that confirmed that Australia and Oceania are considered to be exactly the same. After much avoidance, once some links were submitted they were pretty weak (e.g. a website referring to a continent as "Oceania/Australia" does not confirm that they are exaclty the same but rather that the site recognises their uncertainty in which one to use). I would therefore like to weigh in on the discussion.

I had schooling in both England and Australia and currently live in Australia. As I attended lower school (where continents are usually taught) in England I learnt that there are 7 continents, one of which is Oceania (although it was also referred to as the what seems to be unpopular "Australasia"). I am therefore certainly at least one English speaking person that uses Oceania. It has however become apparent since living in Australia for 20 years that most Australians believe Australia is a continent. Do not however see this as proof of the use of "Australia" over Oceania, as they believe that just the country Australia is the continent. I recognise that since the internet the way we learn has a much more international focus and therefore if a student references a site (such as Wikipedia) describing a continent that conflicts with what the teacher teaches (based on the localised knowledge that they were taught), then it should not be considered as wrong. This is an opportunity for Wikipedia to lead the way for a global way of defining continents that best suits everyone.

My background aside I think that everyone (me included) need to put their personal opinions aside (its amazing how much people will argue a point that they believe in even if wrong) and examine this from what is in the best interest of Wikipedia users. It is clear that continents are defined and numbered differently by different people based on the part of the world they live or the job that they do. For example, continents are defined differently for political and geological reasons. I think that all considerations need to be made and the continent decriptions that are more useful to the majority of people should prevail, while still of course mentioning the lesser used description to ensure all information is available.

To kick things off again I would therefore be interested to know what everyone thinks to the following points and whether they have any impact on the descriptions of continents:

1. Should all the world's countries belong to at least one defined continent? 2. If the answer above is YES, then presuming a 7 continent model which of the 7 continents are the South Pacific nations a member of? 3. Is it reasonable to presume that using the name "Australia" for both a country and a continent can cause some confusion, especially with younger children just learning world geography? 4. If the answer to the last question is YES, then should we use a name that causes less confusion while still accurately describing the continent?

I realise that these questions are obviously geared towards using the name "Oceania" (for which you may say I am biased), however if you follow the logic it best serves the interests of the majority to use this name. I don't think we should ignore the history or science (I am a scientist myself) of the use of the name "Australia", but I think it might be time to move on.

I look forward to your responses. Phil 08:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm saddened that this debate has died down because I feel this page errs in it's insistence on 7 continents. It's of course a problem when science disagrees with pop culture. We had the same debate on the grapefruit in French... in the end, some kind of compromise was achieved by saying «pop culture» says one thing and «science» says another. Of course this page is more complex as the political continents are pop culture based on bad science and geological continents (as I was taught in highschool) are based on misinterpreted science.

Continental drift is my favorite visual approach to understanding continents and the Gondwana page animation demonstrates it best, that animation is needed in the continent text, to show that continents changed throughout the planet's history and to demonstrate why people differ in opinion. I wish that instead of arguing about a trifle of how many continents there are right now and their names, we should steer away from that debate entirely and just draw up a timeline with an image for each great period: coming together, Pangea, breakup and and however many more are needed. Although concensus seems to be that «continent» is primordially a geographical concept, geography is a subjective science at best, and at it's worst, a case of inflated POV. There is no such thing as a standard geographical definition because geography IS politics. I remember way back when I introduced the Canadian Government's Oceania proving website because the Canadian POV was wrongly stated in the article, gives me a good laugh now :)

all references to olympic rings should be deleted as Coubertin was not making a statement about the science of continents but about peoples, it's ridiculous to use Coubertin as a geopolitical reference... If the olympics were destined to whales, he'd have made it 6 rings!!!!!

Australasia, well, you say it exists, if you have strong sources, then it should be at least noted. But since it's a case of POP CULTURE versus POP SCIENCE versus POLITICS/GEOGRAPHY versus GEOLOGY, and Wikipedia's purpose is to represent COMMON knowledge, with sidenotes as to various differences of opinion from various scientists, I think fr:continent got it right: A static image showing 7 land MASSES, with a table underneath acknowledging cultural distinctions on the definitions of continent. Much better than that slow annoying animation! To have an informed opinion of a difference of opinion, we need the «reasoning» behind every opinion, and that is also sorely missing. We state all these different POV but fail to justify any of them... sad. I find myself in the unfortunate situation of not having access to the resources to help improve this page, only my opinions on the general direction the page should take. In this sense I feel fr:continent page did a better job of staying out of trouble for the most of the article, there is so much more to say about continents other than how many are there and should we say Australia or Oceania or Australasia... It should be possible to agree to disagree and a table with all the different options layed out per region and their justifications would go a long way towards that. I realise I didn't exactly answer your remarks, but I had to get all this off my chest :) --Tallard 07:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right: It's of course a problem when science disagrees with pop culture. Wikipedia can sometimes be unscientific for the sake of neutrality. Now all the models are listed equally as if they were equally scientific. Some Japanese geographers divide Eurasia into six regions, not two: East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, West Asia, Central Asia, and Europe, which is reasonable considering area, population, and culture. I hope Eurocentrists someday understand that Europe is not a continent, not even a half. - TAKASUGI Shinji 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency in maps

I must confess I'm not really a geographical wonder (I'm always glad I get home from work :-) ) but I have overlayed all the continent maps and created a "diff" of them. After doing this I noticed a lot of territory is not 'assigned' to any continent. I have no idea how to upload correctly (wikimedia?) and to be honest can't be bothered (at the moment) to find out how to; so I will post my "diff" with an external link. Consider this message as a "please, someone have a look at it"-notice; that's all. The diff: http://www.slash14.nl/continents_diff All the red pixels are 'unassigned' after creating the diff of the 7 continent images RobIII (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Greenland

Okay I think Greenland is considered part of Europe as it is governed by Denmark,so its not in North America,thats not possible.I understand thats closer than North America,but Denmark governs it.Can anyone come up with a solution for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The governance or historical ties has nothing to do with Greenland's geographic placement (one would noever have conisdered Jamaica as being part of Europe just because it was British). Greenland is considered an island of North America. Dainamo (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Settling the Continent debate?

The dfiention seems to be devoid of any source. The phrase contained in the article The ideal criterion that each continent be a discrete landmass is commonly disregarded in favor of more arbitrary, historical conventions. and much of the discussion has completely confused the distintion between what is a "continent" and what is a convenient geographic unit for whatever purpose. To avoid original research, three definitions are given as follows:

1. Encyclopedia Britannca: One of the larger continous masses of land, namely [7 continent system given]
2. Websters Third New International Dictionary (definitiions in cotext) A continuous extent or mass of land: MAINLAND' ; One of the great divisisions of land on the globe; specif: a large body of land distinct from an island or peninsula in its size and structure, which is that of a large basin bordered by mountainous chains as [7 continent system given] ; 6. A large segment of the earth's outer shell.
3. Chambers 21st Century Dictionary: 1. any of the seven land masses of the world

Ok, so one might be able to argue whether or not there are strictly seven land masses, but what is clear is that continents refer to a single large land mass. While this logically may (or may not) be divided as in Europe/Asia/Africa or North/South America, it does not inlcude islands. For example we may talk of Cuba being in the Americas or Great Britain being in Europe as a convenient geographic and/or political category, but it does infer such islands are part of the repsecpective continents. In other words we may say Great Britain is in Europe, but we should not say Great Britian in in the continent of Europe. We may say an island is part of a a continental plate, but that is different. Clearly, Australia is large and diverse enoough to be a continent, but wider groupings such as Austalasia and the ambiguous "Oceania" are not names of continents despite geographers using the terms for convenience under headings "continents". Dainamo (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

British Isles vs. Britain and Ireland

I recently added the word 'Ireland' to the following sentence:

The term "the Continent" (capitalized), used predominantly in the European isles and peninsulas, such as the British Isles, Ireland, Sardinia, Sicily and the Scandinavian Peninsula, means mainland Europe, although it can also mean Asia when said in Japan.

I did this as I believe that British Isles alone did not clearly include Ireland. The edit was reverted by UKPhoenix79. While I realise that both of us are Irish and understand that the term is extremely contentious, I believe in this instance that the use of 'British Isles' alone is unacceptable, as the term is meant in a political rather than technical or geographical sense; i.e. those referring to Europe as 'the Continent' include lay citizens of the entire island of Ireland. Were it merely a scientific reference, it would be less of an issue (if any). There can be no harm in adding the word 'Ireland'. This may seem like semantics, but in cultural terms it is significant. --Conor (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a disinterested (but not uninterested) citizen of the USA, to me "British Isles" has always connoted two major islands: Great Britain, and Ireland, plus the nearby smaller ones. This is how my (American) Webster's dictionary defines British Isles, and that is how the National Geographic (another American institution, but one with broad international respect), labels its map of Great Britain and Ireland. So to me, British Isles = Great Britain and Ireland. If you wanted to say "Great Britain and Ireland", that is the same thing. And saying the British Isles and Ireland is redundant. Given that there are 13 files in the archives of Talk:British Isles, I suspect that this has been discussed at great length; I suggest that that is a better place to discuss this than here. I'd also suggest that forms used here in this article should defer to that article - and the British Isles article does say that British Isles is Great Britain + Ireland, and it does acknowledge the controversy. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(taken from my talk page) You see saying British Isles and Ireland is kind of like saying North America and Canada. Its redundant. Canadians have an issue also believing that North America makes one think of only the United States of America giving the continent a political term. But the continent itself has no political meaning and saying North America and Canada is not realistic. The phrase would have to be changed so that it would not be redundant. One way is to say the United Kingdom and Ireland, making it purely political but that leaves out the channel islands, the isle of man, and most of the other 6,000 islands there. Not only that The British Isles is a geographic term for a group of islands. The UK and Ireland are two countries which happen to be located within that archipelago. Also if you say British Isles and Ireland it would be synonymous with "Great Britain and Ireland", and apparently implies that Northern Ireland is not part of the British Isles, this causes problems in itself. The link to British Isles takes you to a main page that immediately shows the image of Both islands. In this case it would be much better to go with the common understood vernacular until a better term for the isles are accepted. Hope that makes sense :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have boldly rectified this tautology: commonly, the British Isles "[comprise] Great Britain, [the isle of] Ireland, and adjacent islands". [34] If this wording is truly contentious, and instead of insinuating inexactitude and verbosity, I suggest replacing 'British Isles' with 'Great Britain and Ireland'. Quizimodo (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My difficulty is that the phrase 'British Isles' is clearly contentious (It says in the BI article: The Irish government is opposed to the term "British Isles" and says that it "would discourage its usage".) and can be easily avoided. As you can see in the British Isles article, there is a general trend away from the use of the term, and while some American sources may use the term...

Encyclopædia Britannica, the Oxford University Press - publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary - and the UK Hydrographic Office (publisher of "Admiralty" brand charts) have all occasionally used the term "British Isles and Ireland" (with Britannica and Oxford contradicting their own definitions of the "British Isles")...

Redundancy can be avoided by using the terms British-Irish Isles, UK and Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland etc. I'm not trying to rehash the debate from the BI pages, but I do feel that it's unacceptable to use a potentially offensive term when a more neutral one could be used. Conor (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In your recitation from that Wikipedia article, which clearly indicates and depicts upfront the topic of the article, there is one word which to me distinguishes why this shouldn't be contentious -- "occasionally". Anyhow, feel free to insert 'Great Britain and Ireland' in place of 'British Isles' ('British-Irish Isles' being rather uncommon, and the 'UK and Ireland' referring to states on those islands and therefore out of place), but don't insinuate potentially confusing wording which may be perceived as stoking the very issues which you claim not to. Quizimodo (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Changing "British Isles" to "British Isles and Ireland" doesn't help because if using "British Isles" in the inclusive sense is contentious, then using it in the exclusive sense is both contentious and non-standard. If we're looking for an alternative, "Great Britain and Ireland" is the only way to go. -- Jao (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I was suggesting 'British Isles and Ireland' was because that would include Ireland, Britain and its surrounding smaller islands. I reckon 'Great Britain and Ireland' would be acceptable, and so have modified the article accordingly. Cheers. Conor (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)