Talk:Continent/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Problem with the graphic

The current graphic, which colour-codes the world, erroneously shows New Zealand to be part of the Australian continent. Can this be corrected?

Also the population total given for the Australian continent is wrong - it gives 32 million, which is 3 million too high (Australia 21.5 + Papua New Guinea 7.5 million = 29 million). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of continents

The seven-continent model is usually taught in Western Europe, Northern Europe, Central Europe, Southeastern Europe, China and most English-speaking countries.

Ukraine, where I live in, is situated in Southeastern Europe. But we are tought that there are 6 continents: EURASIA, North America, South America, Africa, Australia and Antarctica. Please, don't mix up two different things - "continent" and "part of the world". 80.254.7.254 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The 7-continent model is taught in Croatia, also.

I thought the concept of 7 continents was only taught in the US, to make sure they would distinguish themselves from the rest of the other countries in America. In most european countries and South America it is taught that there are 5 continents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.66.70 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As fun as it is to gripe about the Americans, that doesn't actually make a lot of sense. Canada and Mexico are right there in "North America" in the seven-continent system, for instance--very large countries, hard to ignore on a map.--158.111.4.26 (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of being taught that there are 5 continents in the UK. 86.16.139.140 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Schools in all latinamerican countries (except french guinnea, which i'm not sure) all teach there's SIX continents, regarding "america" as a single one. At school at UK, we where taught the same model. (went to school 3 years in UK, the rest in argentina) I think there should at least be a mention in the first paragraph, that a large portion of the world, considers america as a sinle continent, not two. HuGo_87 (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I recall it always used to be FIVE continents (plus Antartica) - I grew up in the UK. If it is 7 now, not sure when it changed. -- Beardo (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I´m from america, argentina. I met a lot of australians these year and for the first time in my life i heard someone saying that australia is a continent. When i asked why, they answered me "because we are such a big country really far away from everyone else.....". If that is what teach in australia, im really sorry for them cause thats a really poor education. In my country they teach us that there are 6 continents and one of them is Oceania. How come people does not inlcudes new zeland or other island just because they are smallers.....In the same case island from the caribean should´t be include in "America"....???? Or better....we could say that Hawaii cannot be part of USA becasue they are really far away of the country and they are really small.

Another thing to see here in wikipedia. It's so funny to read the concept of continent in english and to read it in spanish because they are totally different. WHY? Shoulnd't encyclopedias, no matter the language, have just one concept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.219.19 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not true

"In East Asia, especially in the Orient, it is taught as a 7-region model since the rendition of "continent" in Chinese is similar to "island", which connotes a separate smaller landmass surrounded by water. "

Not true - it is called the 7 continents. --Sumple (Talk) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. 大陸 (Continent) should be opposite of 島 (island). Both require water to sorround it. If it is taught differently in China, do they call Europe, European大陸? FWBOarticle

"The 6-continent Americas model is taught in England"... this is rubbish too, I'm english and I've never heard this model. I've always been taught that there are 7.

i did up to sixth grade in UK (bristol), and only heard of the 6-continent (one "america" model there. HuGo_87 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I also live in England and have never been taught the 6-continent model. The 7 continent model is what the national curriculum specifies should be taught and is what the significant majority of English people would refer to the world as being divided into. "The 6-continent Americas model is taught in England" is incorrect and superflous

I grew up in the UK in the 60s and 70s, and it was always five continents plus Antartica. The five Olympic rings made perfect sense then. If it now 7, it has changed. -- Beardo (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually more incorrect than stated, in Latin America and Iberia it's taught a 5-continent model and, as far as I understand it all of Western Europe, except for England (and this is probably for political reasons) a 5-continent model is taught as well.

wrong, most latin american countries use the 6-continent model(with a single america). this is something we here consider totaly foreign HuGo_87 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is obviously not one single model and it's admirable that and effort has been made to reflect this, but the final distribution is completely incorrect. eduo 09:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you define "Western Europe" but here in Sweden I was taught a seven continent version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orcoteuthis (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In (West) Germany have been taught the six continents model: Namely, America, Africa, Asia, Australia/Oceania, Antarctica, and Europe. I challenge the statement that the seven continent model is usually taught in Western Europe. This is something I can clearly identify as foreign. Artur Buchhorn (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

well actually they do teach the 6 continent model in england now, they only started doing it about 5 years ago, so you 2 are obviously too old to have been taught it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.9 (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Crustal raft" definition and Eurasia

Consider this paragraph from the article:

Some argue that continents are accretionary crustal "rafts" which, unlike the denser basaltic crust of the ocean basins, are not subjected to destruction through the plate tectonic process of subduction. This accounts for the great age of the rocks comprising the continental cratons. By this definition, Europe and Asia can be regarded as separate continental masses because they have separate, distinct ancient shield areas and a distinct younger mobile belt (the Ural Mountains) forming the mutual margin.

Ignoring the merits or otherwise of this definition as such, the second [read: third] sentence doesn't make much sense. Siberia joined up with Europe (Baltica) before it connected with central and eastern Asia; if the Urals, qua a younger mobile belt, qualifies as a continental margin, so does a number of even younger mobile belts cutting Asia into a bunch of smaller continents. If nobody protests I'll delete the offending sentence. Orcoteuthis (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably oversimplified. But how about changing it to "Europe and much of Asia", instead of deleting it entirely? – Avenue (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I could do that, but Siberia (minus the far east) hardly corresponds to anyone's idea of a "continent" - it's surrounded by contiguous landmasses on three sides! Orcoteuthis (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. What I like about the current statement is that it gives some geological justification for taking the Urals as a boundary between Europe and the rest of Eurasia, but I agree that "Asia" is problematic in this setting. Would this be any better? "By this definition, Europe can be regarded as a distinct continental mass from the rest of Eurasia because it has a separate ancient shield area. A younger mobile belt (the Ural Mountains) marks the boundary between Europe and the block to the east." – Avenue (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. You might want to add a link to Baltica. Orcoteuthis (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it. I went with East European craton instead of Baltica. – Avenue (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Models

In the subsection "Number of the continents", three of the six "models" in the table are unreferenced (since Feb./July 2007). Unless someone provides evidence for them, I will delete them. Note that there is also a second model of six continents consisting of the "7 continents" minus Antarctica (as used for example in the board game "Risk" - though this is hardly a good reference).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

6 Continents

Forget about definitons and what they taught you, THERE ARE 6 CONTINENTS, America (The U.S. are in the same continent as the Latin countries, you like it or not) Europe(Which Russia is not part of because if look in a map 100% of it is in Asia, because unlike Africa the rest of the world do not have square countries!!!!!)Asia, Ocenia (No Australia is a country not a continent), Africa and Antartica.

That is it those are the six continents you like or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.232.142 (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, North and South America are separate continents. It's funny that you accept Europe and Asia as separate continents, despite being wholly joined, but insist that a tiny strip constitutes the Americas as being one continent. Africa is more joined to Eurasia than North America is to South America.--RLent (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The US are not in the same continent than the latin countries! Didn't you know that there are latin countries in Europe?? And Europe is where latin culture originated? Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, etc.?

As for Russia, a part of it is in Europe too. Even if in terms of surface it is not the largest, it is in terms of population, and , yes Europe is Where Russia has started and where Russian culture began to spread towards Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ocenia can only be considered a continent if you decide to adopt a defintion of 'continent' that can include parts of the sea. Which would be a rather odd definition. Useful if for some reason you want to insist that all the islands of the world form part of a larger landmass, even though the in fact do not, but otherwise rather pointless.210.10.106.195 (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Global view?

I see this article not providing a worldwide view, because it states that there are 7 continents: "Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Anctarctica, Europe, and Australia". But I think it would be wiser to icnlude that definition plus "there are other continental models in the world, that have differences, according to the place in which they are taught". This models are: 4 continents (description), 5, and 6 continents (all of them described in the article). And include Oceania, because it is not globally approved that the continents' name is Australia. Also, I think it is quite discriminative that North America is separated from South America, because it tells the people reading this article a high discrimination towards Latin America. I, and all the Latin American countries, think that America is a single, continous landmass (it is joined together by the isthmus of Panama). Plus, the fact that you (possibly) consider that North America is separated is the Panama Canal, but this isn't true, because the Canal is man-made. I think it would be more accurate to detail that the seven continent model is criticized, and look for critics, because i'm not the only one who is against this. Thanks. --J.C. (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Is nobody interested in answering me?--02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The seven continent model American split isn't discriminitive, it's just viewing two American continents as being joined by an isthmus. They are different tectonic plates after all. Views of continental drift probably play in too. How can it be discriminatory if Mexico and many of the Central American countries are included? Besides, it includes the fantasy that Asia and Europe are somehow different continents, which I think is a far stranger viewpoint. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, also you should note that it is perjorative/offensive to New Zealanders to say they are part of the Australian continent. In NZ/Australia and England, this continent is called Australasia when refering to NZ and/or Papua New Guinea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.3.77 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncited crap

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

I live in the UK and this is not common, some use it and some don't. This is misleading and isn't even cited. How about we say "Gee Wiz" is used predominantly in America? I rest my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaelic (talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "Continent" to refer to mainland Europe is now cited with a reliable source. Kman543210 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

date north & south america were recognized as separate continents

I'm trying to find an approximate date north & south america were recognized as separate continents. Please respond to shomza@carolina.rr.com Thanks, Steve Homza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.211.52 (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

They're not. Some countries use one model, others another. Hence, the discussion there is here. HuGo_87 (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no answer to that because there's no universal body that decides what is and is not a continent, as the discussion here should make quite clearOn Thermonuclear War (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That´s like asking when Europe and Asia where recognized as one single continent, "Eurasia". Viridianesco (talk ) 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there continents on other planets?

Could there be continents on other planets? Why conclude that continents are exclusive to Earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.236.169 (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the planets that we know now don't have continents for the simple reason they don't have oceans to define the landmasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

India

Should India be considered a continent, or should it remain a subcontinent of Eurasia? It's seperated from the rest of Eurasia from the Himalayan Mountains, plus, it has it's own tectonic plate, and it has different vegetation and soil there. The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.15.193 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

India is not a continent, but the collective noun for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is "the Indian sub-continent". It is part of Asia, and is separated from Europe by a rather large chunk of Asia and Africa (depending on which route you take between India and Europe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Border colour

I have poor eye sight and had troubles telling the difference between parts of the European continent and Asian border on this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Continents_vide_couleurs.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.43.251 (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the main point of that map is to illustrate the various groupings of the continents, not the details of the boundaries between them. Have a look at our borders of the continents article instead. -- Avenue (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Anomaly"

The separation of Eurasia into "Europe" and "Asia" was not an "anomaly" as this article has stated , but a deliberate way of racist Europeans to distance themsleves from the Asians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.96.214.198 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to call you on this... although I am amused at the irony that you are racist towards Europeans yet choose an accusation of racism as your weapon against those you target, I am offended that you have gone ahead and said "500 million people have this particular bad quality!" but have not used anything to back this up. That is racist. As you are a resident of Spring City, a town founded by Europeans, inhabited by nearly 100% European descendents and which has a thriving KKK movement, perhaps you could teach us all about racism? Has it occurred to you that the reason Europe and Asia are regarded as separate continents is because... they ARE geographically differentiated continents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Basic math fail?

Have a look at the "percentage of total population" column as of this date. Does anyone see a failure in basic arithmetic? 74.78.112.224 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it looks fine to me. It adds to 99.50002%, which is as close to 100% as you can expect given that most of the numbers are only given to the nearest percentage point. -- Avenue (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that the IP wrote this at 14:51 and fixed the numbers at 14:52. The old numbers were clearly off, yes. —JAO • T • C 15:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I see it now. Just vandalism from a half hour before. -- Avenue (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, I should have removed my comment when I fixed it. 74.78.96.154 (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not Amazonia and America?

would be no need to say central, north or south America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.121.62 (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

-What is wrong with that? Should we get rid of Western Europe, North Europe and similar terms to?. I love the name Amazonia for the biggest jungle in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.82.239.234 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Besides the fact that Amazonia already refers specifically to a craton which only encompasses a portion of South America, suggesting new words for things is WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a place to invent names for things and hope they catch on; it is an encyclopedia. If you can find a reliable source that refers to South America as Amazonia, then that usage could be added. TricksterWolf (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

no islands to be allowed to constitute any continent

except on the same continental shelf and being not farther away from the continental subject than 25km (or say 50km). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.121.62 (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Map Problem

There's a problem with the colour-coded map. It shows every land mass as belonging to one of the continents in the seven-continents model. This is wrong, as some landmasses do not belong to the seven continents. New Zealand is the most glaring mistake - it's been included as part of Australia.

I propose altering the map so that New Zealand is a "neutral" colour (maybe grey?).125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with the map. Arguably, New Zealand does 'belong' to the continent of Australia, as it's the nearest continental landmass. This is little different from Great Britain or Iceland being considered a part of Europe or Honshu, Japan, Indonesia considered parts of Asia. This is even more appropriate if one subs in Australia with Oceania. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"...arguably part of Australia" = who is arguing this? If you go to the Australia (continent) page, you will see a long debate which concludes that New Zealand and other Pacific islands are not part of the Australian continent. Nearly all reputable sources consider New Zealand to be independent of the continental model. In addition, the animated map shows islands in the mid-Pacific to be part of Australia, which is clearly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand is part of the submerged continent of Zealandia - not Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I think the Confusion is coming from the use of Oceania and Australia to define a Continental Grouping. Australia is not the best way to describe the Continental grouping, Oceania makes more sense if you're going to include New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. Grouping Australia New Zealand and other Pacific Islands as a Continent should be referred to as Oceania not Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.76.52 (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's a mistake, too. Oceania is not a continent, it's a region. The continent is "Australia". New Zealand and the Pacific islands (with the exception of Papua New Guinea) are not part of the Australian continent, and are actually not in any continent in the seven-continents model (New Zealand is actually part of the submerged continent of Zealandia). So, there is definitely a mistake with the graphic. I support changing it so that New Zealand and the Pacific islands are a neutral grey.

Thoughts, other editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.80.100 (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this, from well-known geographer Matt Rosenburg: "On which continent is New Zealand? New Zealand is an oceanic island far from a continent and thus, like the Caribbean, it is not on a continent but is often considered to be part of the "Australia and Oceania" region." Or this, from the New Zealand Government's website (teara.govt.nz): "The land area of New Zealand is a small part of a continent of nearly 4 million square kilometres (almost half the size of Australia, or about the size of western Europe). However, 93% of the New Zealand continent, sometimes called Zealandia, is underwater. The continent is unusually long and thin. It stretches from latitude 19° south (north of tropical New Caledonia) to 56° south (south of New Zealand’s bleak subantarctic islands)." Or this, from history-nz.org: "New Zealand is part of the largely submerged continent of Zealandia, which stretches from the north of New Caledonia to the south of New Zealand's subantartic islands." Or this, from New Zealand's largest geoscience website (gns.cri.nz): "New Zealand's present day land area of about 250,000 km2 represents only the tip of a much larger submerged continent greater than 6,500,000 km". Frankly, I think the best answer is offered by answers.yahoo.com, where, in answer to the question "what continent is New Zealand on?" the response is "New Zealand is not on the same continental shelf and so is not part of the continent of Australia but is part of the submerged continent Zealandia and the wider region known as Oceania." This is a very important point - New Zealand is NOT part of the Australian CONTINENT. It IS part of the REGION of Oceania or Australasia. A REGION is not a CONTINENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.175.81 (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I have included a disambiguation section at the top of the article (the usual and logical place for disambiguation information) with links to other subsets of Continent.

I notice another contributor doesn't like the additional material and its location. Perhaps a higher administrator might like to arbitrate to prevent the other contributor's edit warring. Gubernatoria (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No: a disambiguation section is unnecessary in this article (perhaps a DAB page entitled 'Continent (disambiguation)' may be warranted instead), and actually confuses the very topic matter the article should clarify. In trying to find a suitable spot for this content, I since noticed the 'additional' information you added is almost totally redundant, as it was already in the 'Other divisions' section of the article which I've since expanded. As well, through your reversions (with no or minimalist edit comments, discourteously), you restored sloppy syntax (e.g., 'Arabian Peninsular') and incorrect links (e.g., Columbia) which I since tried to correct, and other general fixes. Given that these changes are significant and that your bold edits have been reverted, please await additional editorial feedback before edit warring again in favour of an inferior version; nonetheless, I would welcome an administrator to monitor and weigh in on your apparent article/content ownership. As the edit boilerplate says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the links are to help readers who type "continent" looking for one of these concepts, then follow WP:DAB and do it with hatnotes and possibly a Continent (disambiguation). If they are more to provide context and help readers to further reading on related topics, they should be incorporated in the text. At any rate, reducing the lead to one sentence fails MOS:INTRO horribly, and there is nothing usual about beginning an article with a section entitled "Disambiguation"—that's just not done. —JAO • T • C 07:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Population of Australia

At Continent#Area and population there is a table showing the population of Australia to be 32 million, and no source is cited. This is about 10 million too high. (I can't adjust it because it is an embedded image.) At Demographics of Australia it is stated that the population is 21.5 million. The source quoted is here. The table should be corrected. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing Australia (the country) with Australia (the continent). The boundaries of the latter are fuzzy, but there is a fairly good case for including New Guinea, which adds several million to the population. However, the population total given on our page for the continent is 31 million, not 32, so maybe a tweak is needed. That 31 million figure seems to be unsourced, though. -- Avenue (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Even adding New Guinea's population of 7.5 million only gives 28 million. I suspect someone has erroneously added New Zealand's population of 4 million to the total - a mistake, as the discussion above indicates (New Zealand is not part of the Australian continent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That 31 million figure was added in this edit, with an edit summary of "population for the continent as defined in the article would be around 31 million since it would include Australia, PNG and the two New Guinea provinces of Indonesia". So I think your suspicion is unfounded.

Repeating the calculation with the latest figures listed in our Australia, Papua New Guinea, West Papua (province) and Papua (province) articles gives a total of 22.01+6.73+0.80+1.99=31.53 million, or 22.01+6.73+0.65+1.99=31.38 million, depending on which of the two population figures given for West Papua (the province) I use. All the figures for the Indonesian provinces are unsourced, and may date back as far as 2005. Also the PNG figure includes around three quarters of a million people living in New Britain, New Ireland, Bougainville and Manus, which I think might not be part of the Australian continent. Similar exclusions for Australia (Norfolk, Christmas and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands) only amount to a few thousand people. After these exclusions, it seems like the 32 million figure is probably too high. 31 million might be correct. We should cite relevant sources and probably add an explanatory note somewhere, though. -- Avenue (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The concept of the Island of Papua New Guinea being a part of the continent of Australia is intellectually challenging. Is it the objective of the table to show populations adding to equal the estimated total population of the Earth? Or do the populations of non-continental islands not appear in the table?

For example, does the population nominated for Asia include the populations of Japan, Phillipines and Indonesia? Dolphin51 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No more challenging than including Tasmania. Our section on Continent#Extent_of_continents describes assigning all oceanic islands as "extreme", and I believe we shouldn't do this.

The figure of 3,879 million for Asia seems to come from here, and I gather from this page that it does include the populations of Japan, Phillipines and Indonesia, along with "European Russia". The latter seems very questionable to me. -- Avenue (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and well-considered response. I see that the subject is not straight-forward. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

???????

as this page and the template continets of the world say the major continents are north and south americas, europe and asia, antarctica, africa and ....... and AUSTRALIA????????????? if i go to page australia (continent) i see that australia complains out of oceanian part of indonesia, papua new guinea and australia, but new zealand, melanesia,micronesia and polynesia aren't in australian continent, while they are included in oceania which page is twice longer than australia(continent)s one, may the template and page change australia to oceania. Also, if we watch on the various graphics on the page we will see that all the oceanian countries are included under the name of australia, WHO IT ARE XYNTA???????////// it's only 5 conrtinents America,africa,europe,asia and antartid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.168.211 (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably you are the same person that recently asked in yahoo perguntas about this article. There's no reason for you to be confused about the name of the Continents:

If you read carefully this article, you will see that everything is clearly explained:

As will be explained in the article, depending on the convention used, there may be different classifications. Sometimes Australia is cited as a separated Continent; sometimes as part of Oceania.

As for Central America, sometimes it is referred to as a subregion of the North American Continent (which, in turn, is sometmes considered to be a subcontinent of the American Continent).

The use of one convention depends on the historical and cultural context. In Brazil, its more usual to consider Australia as part of Oceania and Central America as a separated Continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.39.62.188 (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not correct to say that "everything is clearly explained". The article is seriously flawed throughout, in that it confuses the continent of Australia with Oceania, which is a region - not a continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.175.81 (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Central America?

The continents are:

Africa, America, Antarctica, Asia, Europa & Oceania.

Australia is not a continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.61.32 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Answer: If you read the article Australia (continent), you will see that actually, Australia can be considered a continent, depending on the classification considered. Indeed, you will see that Australia (continent) is not exactly the same thing as Australia (country).

Another classification in the one which you used, very common in Brazil: Australia as part of Oceania.

Hope you have no more doubts.

"Australia is the smallest of the geographic continents, though not of geological continents.[1] There is no universally accepted definition of the word "continent"; the lay definition is "One of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface." (Oxford English Dictionary). By that definition, the continent of Australia includes only the Australian mainland, and not nearby islands such as New Guinea. From the perspective of geology or physical geography, however, a "continent" may be understood to include the continental shelf (the submerged adjacent area) and the islands on the shelf, which are taken to be structurally part of the continent. By that definition Tasmania, New Guinea and other nearby islands such as the Aru Islands and Raja Ampat Islands are part of the Australian continent since they are part of the same geological landmass. These islands are separated by seas overlying the continental shelf — the Arafura Sea and Torres Strait between Australia and New Guinea, the Timor Sea between Australia and Timor, and Bass Strait between mainland Australia and Tasmania." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.39.62.188 (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

...also, Oceania is not a continent. It is a region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.80.100 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Oceania article "The term is sometimes used more specifically to denote a continent comprising Australia Continent and proximate islands". View that page for sources. Cliff (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Australia

Australia is not a continent. That term is defunct and has been replaced with Oceania. Australasia is not a continent. It is the term used to define the countries of Austalia and New Zealand. However it does not include other parts of the continent Oceania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggydude (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been explained about every time in the talk page. Oceania is a political construct, whereas Australia is a geological continent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, that is not quite correct either. Oceania is not a continent at all - it is a region. Australia is word that can refer to a country, or a continent. The country is part of the continent, but the two are not synonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.80.100 (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Oceania article "The term is sometimes used more specifically to denote a continent comprising Australia Continent and proximate islands". View that page for sources. Cliff (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Historical populations

I removed the list of historical populations which were added, then modified in these edits by 64.252.197.37 (talk · contribs) and 86.25.165.127 (talk · contribs). While such information is likely to be useful, the data supplied was unreferenced and some of it obviously absurd (eg. Europe obviously had a population of much more than 9,000,000 in 1800). If data from a reliable source can be found, feel free to add it. Astronaut (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Iceland

Iceland will be continent someday, right? If North-America is moving to Siberia Iceland will grow. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends really. Assuming a geological definition, Iceland doesn't have its own continental plate, it is divided between the North American and Eurasian plates. Therefore it probably is not a continent of itself. It is definitely expanding at the moment, as North America moves west, but whether this will keep happening? Who knows. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Content

Alright, I shouldn't have to do this, but.

1) IP's change of caption makes it more confusing and WP:OVERLINKs it.

2) Information in lede is useful. In nonenglish countries it is very different (The Americas, I think you've been there)

3) Terms is better than names in terms of Oceania.

So you're completely off policy, especially WP:BRD. In addition, I see no citation issues raised. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you should - here's why:

Caption includes informative, relevant links, previously in place. For example, do you insist that Eurasia, the first instance of the word, stupidly remain delinked? There's no need to oversimplify.

Information that has been added in the lede is opinion and without citation, full stop, and is verbose. Which countries? In fact, every atlas I've seen groups distant islands in one of the seven main continental regions; the UN scheme of countries/regions also does so (geopolitically). The one source that is in the lede plainly lays out what a continent is and how many there are. If you cannot substantiate content, don't bother adding it.

See above; feel free to specify 'terms' as opposed to 'names', but the other gobbledygook about the constituents of Oceania is just that. As well, Australia/Oceania is a continent in the other models.

Lastly, please note that this article content remained unchanged for months until the aforementioned substandard changes were made ... and they definitely aren't enhancements. So, it is you that is off policy, should heed BRD, not to mention WP:V, and await more feedback before continuing revert warring. 76.67.16.43 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

1) Not sure why Eurasia would be singled out. The links should be in text rather than caption.

2) The lede just takes from the article. Note I didn't add that content, and I'm fine removing that sentence. It's the English-speaking one that should be there.

3) Much of the pacific is not really proximate to Australia

Uhuh. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(1) I cited Eurasia as an example - in summary, there's no reason to not link relevant terms in an image caption. I see no guideline that precludes linking in captions. And it isn't overlinking: the second point in WP:OVERLINK is moot, as the various continents are the subject of the article; I don't see overlinking as it was.

(2) The lede as recently edited does not take from the article; it rehashes certain uncited notions, perhaps to (I suspect) mollify New Zealanders who may not like being lumped in (perhaps justifiably) with their larger neighbour. It may be that the 7-continent model is common in English (and this is an English article), but that reckoning isn't limited to English, and it's an unjustified/unsourced qualification. If it can't be sourced, then it doesn't belong. The ref in the lede makes no mention of language when delineating what the continents are. And the caption text covers off where the article text doesn't.

(3) True, but many of the islands are near to Australia (also called the 'island continent'), hence the varying definitions of what comprise Oceania. 76.67.16.43 (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1) It's a lot of information for a caption anyway. I'll tell you what, i'll work that information into the caption into the lede, as lets face it there is space for it.

2) Yes it does, all the points were in the article. It's not unjustified, many continental models are different, hence the olympic flag.

3) The word proximate is wrong, but I'll fix that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) I see little need to edit the caption, as the only difference in its contents before and after has been linking of relevant items and wordsmithing. And you first indicate there's too much info in the caption, and then suggest to work in disagreeable content into it because there's room. Suggest here first.

(2) There are different continental 'models' (actually, I wonder about whether they are characterized as such in any sources), but that gobbledygook doesn't need to be in the lede. And, talk of different models is already in the caption, without jumping to conclusions about what the deal is in English or not. Any information that is not sourced, per WP:V, and consented to will be removed.

(3) 'Proximate' is not wrong (it means 'close' as in near, and those islands are nearer to Australia than say mainland Asia), but am open to suggestions. And Oceania and Australasia are proper nouns and names. 76.67.16.43 (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1) You misread me, I mean to move information about the models to the lede.

2) Considering this article deals with continents, what the continents are is quite important. It's not english, it's english speaking countries, USA etc.

3) Some of the islands are much closer to mainland asia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) And what I'm saying is that I see little need to move that information. It's appropriately placed within the caption of the dynamic image that exhibits the different models.

(2) It's clear through sources and content what the continents are. You need to provide sources to support contestable content about what English/non-English countries may consider them to be. The sentence of note is objectionable. Note that much of this rhetoric down below is also unsourced. My concern stands, and will remove anything without a source attached to it regarding this.

(3) A simple solution is to merely say 'Australia and Pacific islands' or similar - the rest is opinion, and is irrelevant as the section deals with the number of continents, not what they necessarily comprise. And they are names, not simply terms. 76.67.16.43 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

What's more, this isn't completely accurate as (e.g.) Tasmania is not necessarily a Pacific island, given that it somewhat delineates the border between the Indian and Pacific oceans. But... 76.67.16.43 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1) It would be helpful in the lead. This still doesn't justify your changes of the caption text.

2) All the continental definitions are well sourced (except that weird Africa/Antarctica one). As for different views, other articles provide some references, such as Martin W. Lewis, Karen E. Wigen (1997). "Chapter One, The Architecture of Continents". The Myth of Continents. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20742-4.. I'll try contacting editors who can access such texts.

3) They are names yes, but sometimes for different areas. Note Australasia is different than Oceania. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) I've enhanced the caption text, which is frankly a restoration of the prior content. It is not helpful to have a litany of text without links in it - this is a wiki, after all. I don't think you've justified why we should retain your caption changes, without discussion, beginning in Oct. So, BRD that.

(2) The continental definitions may be well sourced, and I am not objecting to that, but I see little directly in terms of what are considered continents in which languages/countries. Still, multiple viewpoints are adequately presented elsewhere in the article.

(3) Noted, and no objections. But they are names, not simply terms. 76.67.16.43 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1) I won't get into BRD policy details, but those changes were made months ago. Simply because "consolidate continent" etc. is strange wording, and starts from the position of defined continents before change rather than starting with an area with which to divide into continents.

2) The source I provided apparently does.

3) A term is a formal name, so saying it is not just a term but a name has it back to front. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) If you choose to not get involved in BRD details, do not invoke them here. I do not find the wording strange, and many editors didn't think so earlier either. I'm open to rewording, but delinking relevant terms is a non-starter. The rest of your response isn't clear.

(2) Well, you'll have to provide and cite the source, then: the burden is on you to prove, not on me to disprove. Regardless, that sentence in the lede is malformed and content adequately covered elsewhere.

(3) Can't qualify your statement, so feel free to change that, but the rest about islands and such isn't required. 76.67.16.43 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1) Fine, link them, I prefer the wording you changed. Don't put words into other editors mouths.

2) How as it malformed? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran in Europe?

There appears to be a small glitch in here. It lists Iran as one of the territories containing the lowest points in Europe. Iran is not in Europe. 145.97.198.225 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There are definitions of the Europe/Asia boundary that would put part of Iran inside Europe (see Borders_of_the_continents#Lesser_accepted_Europe_and_Asia_divisions). But they are not widely accepted. That list should be reworked to show which countries would be widely accepted, and which less so. --Avenue (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Avenue (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. No common definition places Iran in Europe DLinth (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why ice, not land? (for high, low points)

Extremes on Earth expressly says "points beneath ice sheets are not considered 'on land'" and lists Death Valley (N. Amer.) and Deep Lake in Antarctica. Should we not do the same here (i.e., flip these two items in the table with the footnotes.)??DLinth (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. I would expect ice to be the top of the land. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Avenue (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Lagos

Why is Lagos Nigeria listed as the largest city in Africa in the demographics/land mass chart on this page? Cairo is the largest city in Africa. Lagos is the second, a fact stated clearly at the top of the Lagos article. I don't want to change, in case this has been discussed before, but I don't see it on the current talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.157.131 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

For some reason – possibly because the area involved is less subject to challenge – this article bases the ranks on "city proper", the population within the actual legal/administrative boundaries of the city, as opposed to broader terms such as "urban area" or "metropolitan area". According to both List of cities proper by population and the two individual city articles, Lagos "proper" edges out Cairo "proper". Fat&Happy (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

istanbul isnt the most populated town in europe

the town is on both sides in europe and asia so you can count only half the population european. Moscow is most populated town in europe.--Karesu12340 (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

New submerged continent

http://io9.com/5820246/this-lost-continent-off-the-coast-of-scotland-disappeared-beneath-the-ocean-55-million-years-ago

Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but not really relevant, not yet anyway. 10.000 km² isn't nearly enough to be considered a continent. It's roughly the size of Jamaica. It (possibly) being on its own tectonic plate isn't enough either, I think, because there are several other small plates (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg ), such as the one India is on, and those aren't considered continents either. Pixelsnader (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Afro-Eurasia

There is (or was) a "dubious - discuss" tag for the "four continents" theory. Apparently nobody discussed this so far. I did not know this theory, IOW, I considered the "four continents" as patent nonsense. But checking the article it turned out to make sense: "one land mass", as explained in the article, with a nice animated GIF showing the count.

Unrelated, the article states quite often that Spain/Portugal/Greece consider the Americas as one continent. JFTR, that is also the case in Germany, or rather it was the case 40 years ago, I can't tell what they teach today. More precisely in Germany the Americas are considered as one continent with three sub-continents (North, "Middle" = Central, South; with Mexico and the Caribbean as part of Central America). Many contributors on this talk page already pointed out that there is no such thing as an "Australian continent", that continent is known as Oceania; please fix this. My own SoFixIt for today was a reference for "the eighth continent" — another case of patent nonsense that turned out to be okay, if so far only one source is good enough. –89.204.136.53 (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about what is taught in Germany or even in other English speaking regions, but in the US it is taught that the country Australia covers the entire continent of Australia (along with the island of Tasmania) which is in turn part of a region known as Oceania. Please note that when I say "entire continent of Australia" I am using the common man's definition, a more geological definition in the US would include Tasmania and New Guinea as part of the same continent. --Khajidha (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)