Talk:Continent/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Oceania

Wherever "Australia" is used in this article, it should be replaced with Oceania, since that is less confusing, and is commonly used nowadays. Pass a Method talk 15:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Says who? I most commonly see Australia named as of one of the continents. Oceania is often used for a region that includes Australia and many non-continental islands in the Pacific, but it isn't called a continent per se in any source I've seen. --Khajidha (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the article considers the Australian continent to include New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, which is just plain wrong. Changing Australia to Oceania throughout is also wrong (Oceania is a region - not a continent), but is a less severe error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.175.81 (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the article includes NZ and the Pacific Islands as part of the Australian continent. It's true that Australia is a continent, but the continent of Australia does not include NZ and the Pacific Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 02:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the only solution to this endless replacement of Australia vs. Oceania in this article is section in which the difference is explained. From a geology point of view I think it is misleading to group Australia together with for example New Zealand. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Simplistic colour-coded map is wrong...

...because it shows New Zealand and the Pacific Islands as being part of continental Australia.

This is wrong.

New Zealand is not part of the Australian continent. Geologically, New Zealand is part of the continent of Zealandia (which is usually left out of continental models). Geopolitically, New Zealand is part of the REGION (note: REGION, not continent) of Oceania or Australasia.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this, judging by the comments below. Apart from New Zealand, the map shows islands including Fiji, Samoa, the Cooks, and even eastern Pacific islands as being part of Australia, which is just plain wrong no matter what continental model is being used.

There is no law which says that every country in the world has to belong to a continent. New Zealand and the Pacific Islands are not included in the standard 7-continent model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.187.197 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This also disagrees with the Australia (continent) article which doesn't include New Zealand in the definition. GalaxiaGuy (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Olympic symbols

I think the paragraph mentioning the Olympic Symbols should be removed or at least edited. The IOC stated specifically that the rings are not intended to represent continents. This statement can be found Here (Enshou (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC))

The statement you cite says that no specific colo(u)r represents a specific continent. It does not say that the aggregate of five rings is not a reference to the continents. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Very true, I don't get how I misread that. Clearly wasn't well awake. You can disregard this section. (Enshou (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC))

Olympic symbols: other source

<< In 1914, the Olympic flag presented by Pierre de Coubertin at the Paris Congress was adopted. It includes the five interlaced rings, which represent the union of the five continents and the meeting of athletes from throughout the world at the Olympic Games >> (Olympic charter, pag. 8)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.132.212.14 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Number of continents

We have 4 study models of definitions:

1* Model 7 continents (its validity is only for the anglosassones nations): ASIA, EUROPE, AFRICA, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA, OCEANIA, ANTARTIDE

2* Model 6 continents (the most important, the only what it has all over the world validity, and it is taught in the schools): ASIA, EUROPE, AFRICA, AMERICA, OCEANIA, ANTARTIDE

3* Model 5 Continents: ASIA, EUROPE, AFRICA, AMERICA, OCEANIA

4* Model 4 continents: EUFRASIA (EUROPE+AFRICA+ASIA), AMERICA, OCEANIA, ANTARTIDE

one only of this 4 model talk about 2 differents americans continent. The rest of model (majority) talk about America as an only continent! Wikipedia must writeas reliable the most shared informations all over the world and from the majority of the studies

--Music&Co (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As you admit, the separation of the Americas is an Anglo-Saxon concept. Seeing as this IS the English language site, using this concept as the default makes sense to me. --Khajidha (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

5* 3 model method? i know its not used but technically Russia and Alaska connect

Didn't know the topic was already started. I see your point, but I have never heard the argument made before. Need a source or it's original research I'm afraid. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Largest Island

The largest island is not Greenland as claimed in this article. I should not have to define "island" but Im sure such a trivial point will be debated here nonetheless:

"An island pron.: /ˈaɪlənd/ or isle /ˈaɪl/ is any piece of sub-continental land that is surrounded by water."

From the Oxford Dictionary:

"a piece of land surrounded by water: the island of Crete"

From the Collins Dictionary:

"a mass of land that is surrounded by water and is smaller than a continent."

I would add to this that generally an island must be a part of one political country. Therefore Antarctica is not an island as it is claimed by many political countries (it's also a Continent).

Therefore the mainland (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) landmass of Australia (7,595,342 sq km ) is the largest island. It is not a continent as every argument about which continent the political country of Australia belongs to includes Tasmania as a minimum (other definitions include New Zealand and Papua New Guinea). It is therefore sub-continental, surrounded by water and belonging to one political country.

--Jimbon132 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that Australia is always considered a continent, and is sometimes described as an island-continent, and sometimes as an island, but not always as an island. Can you say who calls it an island, and who doesn't? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• • : The mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is not considered a continent by anyone, if you disagree please provide references. Please see the discussion above. It is an island by definition, as it meets all criteria for that definition. --Jimbon132 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Your edit is inconsistent with List of islands by area. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• • : The article you refer to does not give the area of mainland Australia (excluding Tasmania), so my edit cannot be inconsistent with List of islands by area. --Jimbon132 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia should not be used as a source for itself, so comparisons with other articles is not generally a valid approach, nor is using Wikipedia pages (including talk pages) as references. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

By using Wikipedia pages (including talk pages) as references I am including the sources and arguments in those pages, so If the Wikipedia pages (including talk pages) cannot be used as references all the original sources and arguments will need to be quoted again, making this a very inefficient and tiresome forum for debate. --Jimbon132 (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To use the original sources is not tiresome and inefficient, on the contrary it is the most concise and efficient method of proceeding. If Wikipedia pages are used as references, then the sources of those articles will have to be checked anyway, so it is simpler just to cite them to start with. Also I was referring to your edit in the article, when you cited this page as a reference; references in articles must refer to original sources, not Wikipedia. I will try and address some of your points:

1) The main thrust of your argument appears to be that an island is any sub-continental piece of land that is surrounded by water and owned by "one political country". The last defining factor which you use is fallacious, and you have provided no source to back it. An island is a physical entity, not a political one. By your definition, the following do not count as islands: Ireland (divided between the UK and Eire), Borneo (Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia), New Guinea (Indonesia and Papua New Guinea) and Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

For argument sake, lets say that my last defining factor (That a landmass must be owned by one political country) is not true. Then the only two criteria for a landmass to be considered an island is that a landmass must be sub-continental and surrounded by water. This definition was referenced by several reputable sources in my argument above. So it seems the only point you are debating is that the landmass of mainland Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is continental. If you are correct and the landmass of mainland Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is continental, then the continent of Australia cannot also include Tasmania, it needs to be one or the other. Australia the continent either includes Tasmania or is does not include Tasmania. Otherwise it is a paradox and in human defined arbitrary concepts, there are no paradoxes. So one answer or the other is wrong and the other is right. Obviously the mainland of Australia is not a continent, so it must therefore be an island by definition.

By your logic, If the mainland of Australia cannot be considered an island in the continent it occupies, Greenland cannot be considered an island in the continent it occupies. Therefore your saying that Greenland is not an island.--Jimbon132 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, because the mainland of Australia is the main landmass within the continental circumscription that it occupies. Greenland is not the main landmass within the continent of North America. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You are making your own conclusions and your own assertions there, which is original research (see WP:OR) and has no place on Wikipedia, as you have said. No source you have provided states that an island cannot be the main landmass within a continent. The Oxford dictionary defines a sub-contenent as: "a large distinguishable part of a continent, such as North America or the part of Asia containing India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.". Therefore the landmass of Australia is a sub-continent, not a continent and it is surrounded by water, making it an island by the sources provided. I have also provided several sources which state that the mainland of Australia is considered an island, regardless of the fact that it is the main landmass within Australia, Australasia, Oceania or whatever arbitrary definition you give to the continent it occupies.

The concensus is that there are seven continents , with North and South America being seperate continents, therefore together they cannot be considered an island because they are not seperated by sea. By the sources provided and your elimination of my original thought from the argument (regarding the political criteria for an island), the mainland of Antarctica is also an island, although not as large as the mainland of Australia.--Jimbon132 (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

2) If, as must be the case, the political circumscription is put to one side, then by your logic (Australia is sub-continental because of the existence of Tasmania) the landmass which constitutes North and South America could be an island (if North and South America combined are classed as one continent, as per some definitions), because there are numerous offshore islands helping to make the continent, so the main landmass is "sub-continental". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, if you take away the criteria that an island must belong to one political country, the whole definition of an island becomes compleatly arbitrary and nonsense. I am sure you would agree that North and South America cannot be considered an island, but Madagascar can, therefore the criteria that an island must belong to one political country is implicit in common usage of the world "island". Something so fundamental will not be listed in any reference. But this is not neccesary in order to debate if Greenland is the biggist island so I suggest we concentrate on whether the mainland of Australia is sub-continental as the argument rests on that. --Jimbon132 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing "implicit in common usage" regarding the political status of islands; you are making your own assertions and coming to your own conclusions, which has no place in Wikipedia as it counts as original research (see WP:OR). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that I am making my own assertions and coming to my own conclusions and this is forbidden on Wikipedia, so as I have said, we will take the political criteria for an island out of the argument. Although I know that many of the references used on Wikipedia also use Wikipedia for a reference.--Jimbon132 (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

3) The Philips Atlas of the World (2nd edition) contains numerous lists, including sizes of continents and islands. Under "continents" are listed Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia and Oceania. Under "islands", the list is divided between the relevant continents, and under "Oceania" the largest island is listed as New Guinea, not Australia, and it is listed as the second largest island in the world, after Greenland.

Other sources may make other circumscriptions, but there I have provided one respected source which does not list Australia as an island. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that Australia is an island, I am suggesting that the landmass of mainland Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is an island, which is different. This does not have a modern English name and therefore would not have been considered in any atlas. Nevertheless, it is still an island.

Here are several sources which list Australia as an island:

• The name Meganesia (refering to the mainland of Australia and meaning "great island") is widely accepted by Biologists as described in the book "The Torres connection: Zoogeography of New Guinea" by W. Filewood .
• Graphic Maps, Worldatlas.com defines Australia as an island

Excluding the definition of a word, sources are not neccessary to determine whether the mainland of Australia is an island or not. It's a logic problem and hence logic rather than tradition will lead to the correct answer. Simply because something has traditionaly been called something, does not make it true. --Jimbon132 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To state that "sources are not necessary to determine whether the mainland of Australia is an island or not" demonstrates a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia is based on sources, not "logic" (or illogic, depending on one's view). Of course, sources can disagree to a greater or lesser extent, and disagreement should be reflected within articles, giving due weight to different views, although when assessing how to give weight, consideration has to be given to the relative reliability of the sources concerned. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

To the original assertion, the idea that for a piece of land to be considered an island, it must be controlled by one political entity, is ridiculous. It's not in any source, and is quite obviously wrong. The quite large island of Hispaniola is divided between two different countries and is the main landmass for both. An even bigger island, Borneo, quite close to Australia, holds the territory of three countries, including almost all of Brunei. There are other divided islands, and we even have a page on them. They are all considered islands. Similarly, the idea that continents must not include surrounding islands is also mistaken. Just as Tasmania and New Guinea are usually included in the Australian continent, so Greenland and the Arctic archipelago are usually included in North America, Madagascar is usually included in Africa, the British Isles are usually included in Europe, and Sri Lanka is usually included in Asia. All of these continents still have a mainland area. CMD (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No one has said that continents cannot include islands, why are you saying that? I think PaleCloudedWhite is saying (correct me if im wrong) that the main landmass in a continent is itself a continent and therefore not an island, which I disagreed with. --Jimbon132 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll weigh in and say that the sources in this discussion seem to better support calling Australia a 'continent' than an 'island.' I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong, but the fact that User:Jimbon132 has stopped sharing sources more reliable than the Philips Atlas of the World and is instead saying that his own logic is more valid than reliable sources indicates that he looked, but wasn't able to find any more reliable sources. I looked at the link he cited as a source for Australia being better classified as an 'island', but I couldn't find it- that page seems to specifically call Australia 'the smallest continent.' Since the sources don't seem to support Jimbon132's idea, there doesn't appear to be anything to discuss here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1) I have used sources from the Oxford Dictionary, the Collins Dictionary, a prominent work on Vertebrate zoogeography in Australasia as well as a worldwide map maker. If you have any argument as to why these sources are inferior, please share it, otherwise your assertion lacks merit.

2) The reference I provided is a list of islands , under the continent of Oceania, Australia is clearly listed.

3) The reference does not say that Australia the smallest continent, on the Australia page it says that Oceania is the smallest continent. How is this relevant?

4) I said this is a logic problem based on the definition of the word "island", where did I say my logic was more valid than reliable sources? And how can you say that because I said it was a logic problem, that I could not find reliable sources? That seems to be an unreasonable jump.

5) By the way, many of the arguments here are purely your own logic and you have not used sources to justify them.--Jimbon132 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that because you're arguing that just because the continent of Australia often includes the Tasmania, the mainland can not be considered a continent. Whether or not it's an island, the mainland of Australia is definitely the continental landmass of the Australian continent, just as the main body of Antarctica is the continental landmass of Antarctica. CMD (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1) This argument is about whether or not the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is a island or not. So are you saying that the mainland of Australia is an island as well as a continent? You say "Whether or not it's an island, the mainland of Australia is definitely the continental landmass of the Australian continent".

2) Unfortunately someone in their infinite wisdom decided to name the continent (which often includes Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea) after a country in that continent, Australia, which is a great cause of confusion in discussions like this. So, just for the arguments sake and clarity, can we refer to the continent which includes Australia as "Oceania" and the political country of Australia as "Australia".--Jimbon132 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Oceania is a far more expansive term than Australia, with quite a few more meanings. By your sources, and others, islands are generally considered smaller than continents. Given that the mainland is a continent, by those definitions it's not an island. Of course, other definitions do not make the two mutually exclusive, but the distinction is the usual treatment and we follow that. Given this, Greenland is the largest island. If we take the Australian mainland as an island, there's no reason not to take the other continental landmasses as islands, as the only distinction you've given between them, that of political separation, is as I explained flawed. CMD (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1) Please read my argument, I conceaded that the political criteria for an island I used did not have any sources as it is not needed to prove whether the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is an island or not. I also suggested we concentrate on whether this landmass is a continent or not as it is fundamental to determine whether it is an island.

2) There is a distinction between continental landmass and a continent, they dont mean the same thing. "Continental" means "forming or belonging to a continent" . For example, continental Europe typically excludes the UK which is a part of the the continent of Europe.

3) You said "Given that the mainland is a continent...", how is this "given"? You have not provided any sources which show this. My sources show that the mainland of Australia is a sub-continent, less than a continent. It is smaller than the continent which the landmass of Australia belongs to as I have said in my argument above.

4) Other than Antarctica (as I have said in my argument above), there are no "continental landmasses" which are compleatly surrounded by water. I did make the distinction that an island must be surrounded by water if you read my argument.--Jimbon132 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your sources show nothing of the kind. Every mainland is smaller than the continent to which they belong, because all continents have islands. All continental landmasses are surrounded by water. How you divide your continents are up to you, but if you read the page, you'll see there's a few options. In the end, all land is surrounded by water. CMD (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1) Rather than just saying my sources dont show that the mainland of Australia is not a continent, why dont you explain why they don't? Im not going to repeat my argument above unless you have an argument against it.

2) Can you please explain how Europe is surrounded by water? (Or Asia, North America, South America, Africa). Yes all land is surrounded by water if you include all the land, but it is not an island unless it is smaller than a conintent and surrounded by water, as I have said above.

3) You have not provided any sources which justify your statement: "Given that the mainland is a continent..."--Jimbon132 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jimbon132, while Australia is described as an island, Australia_(continent) is also well-established as a continent. Oceania is not by any means considered a continent. Zealandia_(continent) is well defined and well separate from Australia_(continent). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe I am proposing that the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is not a continent. While I agree that many people consider Australia to be a continent, there is a distinction between the continent of Australia and the mainland of Australia. I was simply trying to simplify this by calling the continent of Australia "Oceania" not start a debate on what "Oceania" means which is off topic. I am sorry if I have used the term incorrectly. So rather than referring to the continent of Australia as "Oceania" we will have to refer to it as the continent of Australia. Rather than refer to the political country of Australia as "Australia" we will have to refer to it as "political country of Australia"

The only question that really needs to be answered is:

Is the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands)a continent or not?

If it is, then it's not an island, if it isn't, then it is an island.

I have presented a referenced argument which shows it is not a continent. Nobody has presented a referenced argument showing that it is a continent.--Jimbon132 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jimbon123: Nowhere in your sources does it say the mainland is not a continent, I shouldn't need to explain that. Europe isn't surrounded by water, but the landmass it's on is. I advise you again to look at the different continental models presented on this page. Even if we are stuck in the arbitrary mindset of 7 continents, that still leaves Antarctica. Considering your earlier statement "sources are not neccessary to determine whether the mainland of Australia is an island or not. It's a logic problem", I find it a bit rich that you then ask for sources (although some exist, such as [1]). Anyway, back to your original assertion, that the mainland is the largest island, if the mainland is not a continent as the Australian continent includes outlying islands, than the same idea applies to Antarctica, as the Antarctic continent has outlying islands, and at the end of the spectrum the entire mainland of Afro-Eurasia is the largest island. On the other hand, if (in the seven continent system) we take that each continent has a large area of land surrounded smaller (sub-continental) islands, than the mainland is the large area of land. Either way, the mainland isn't the largest island. CMD (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@CMD

1) I said in my argument above:

The Oxford dictionary defines a sub-continent as: "a large distinguishable part of a continent, such as North America or the part of Asia containing India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh."

So you are saying that the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is not a large distinguishable part of the continent of Australia? Why does that not require explanation? I think the truth of it is you have not read my argument before you started arguing against it which suggests you may have a hidden agenda here.

2) You have taken my quote out of context, I said "Excluding the definition of a word, sources are not necessary to determine whether the mainland of Australia is an island or not.". I have since been told by PaleCloudedWhite that WikiPedia is based on sources, not logic. I have agreed to this and provided several sources to back up my argument. You have provided no sources to back up any of your arguments and as PaleCloudedWhite has said, that is not how Wikipedia works.

3) I just said that the mainland of Antarctica is an island, Im not sure why you are repeating this.

4) You say "if (in the seven continent system) we take that each continent has a large area of land surrounded smaller (sub-continental) islands, than the mainland is the large area of land." Yes, that is the definition of mainland. You then go on to conclude: "the mainland isn't the largest island.". How does the fact that each continent in the seven continent system has a mainland mean that the mainland is not an island? Your not providing any reasoning for your conclusion. The only two continent mainlands which are islands are Antarctica and Australia because they are the only two (in the seven continent system) which are completely surrounded by water, the others connect to other continents by land. I explained that in my last post.

5) Yes, if you start defining Afro-Eurasia as a continent, the mainland of that continent would be an island yes. But that is not a common convention. To have a reasonable argument it must be on a consistant foundation. The continent system is arbitrary, the largest island will depend on which system is used. It is consensus that the seven continent system is the most common, so it is on this basis that my argument is made and under that system, the mainland of Australia will be the largest island. If you want to argue about which continent system should be used please do that in the appropriate section of this talk page. If you then form a concensus on which system should be used, the largest island may change since an islands definition is dependent on the continent system used and I would agree to that.--Jimbon132 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, in your 3) you noted the mainland of Antarctica is an island, yet you in 5) repeat your assertion that the mainland of Australia is the largest island. Both are isolated in the 7-continent system (and every other one for that matter), so pick one. I'd also like to know what possible hidden agendas people can have in relation to this topic. Some sort of conspiracy for islandists or something I suppose. CMD (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

1) Pick one what? If your asking me to pick which one is an island I have already said that both the mainland of Antarctica and the mainland of Australia are islands. What is the problem? Why do I need to pick one?

2) No a hidden agenda in these debates is often far less dramatic, usually someone comes on who just wants to argue and complicate the matter rather than find the truth as I am trying to do. But this is off topic.--Jimbon132 (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

3) You have not responded to my argument in point 1 and 4 of my previous post:

"1) I said in my argument above:

The Oxford dictionary defines a sub-continent as: "a large distinguishable part of a continent, such as North America or the part of Asia containing India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh."

So you are saying that the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is not a large distinguishable part of the continent of Australia? Why does that not require explanation?"

To put this back in context I will quote that you said: "Nowhere in your sources does it say the mainland is not a continent, I shouldn't need to explain that."CMD (talk)

"4) You say "if (in the seven continent system) we take that each continent has a large area of land surrounded smaller (sub-continental) islands, than the mainland is the large area of land." Yes, that is the definition of mainland. You then go on to conclude: "the mainland isn't the largest island.". How does the fact that each continent in the seven continent system has a mainland mean that the mainland is not an island? Your not providing any reasoning for your conclusion. The only two continent mainlands which are islands are Antarctica and Australia because they are the only two (in the seven continent system) which are completely surrounded by water, the others connect to other continents by land. I explained that in my last post."--Jimbon132 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mainlands aren't islands if you consider continents to be large areas of land (as all sources do), and islands and continents to be mutually exclusive. As for your argument that the mainland of Australia is a large distinguishable part of the continent of Australia, that can apply to basically any area of land anywhere in the world. "Sub-continent" is as convention bound as "Continent", and convention sees it almost never in use outside of discussion of the Indian subcontinent. You need to pick one because in your post two above you said "the mainland of Australia will be the largest island", which is not true if you take Antarctica to be an island, which you also claim to do. That inconsistency is the problem. CMD (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

1) Claiming something is just convention is not helpful unless you provide sources showing it is convention. It's not really helpful to say something is convention either as just because something is convention, does not make it correct. It was convention once to say that the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth (please, please, please dont argue with me on that ;) ). The fact remains that the mainland of Australia and Antarctica both meet the definition of a sub-continent , so by definition they are both islands.

2) Claiming all sources say something is not helpful unless you provide "all sources".

3) Yes I agree that the mainland of Antarctica is the largest island, not the mainland of Australia.--Jimbon132 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Convention is fairly obvious from just googling "subcontinent", I shouldn't have to show that toy ou. I haven't ever seen any source alluding to defining either Australia or Antarctica as subcontinents, and if any exist, they're quite a WP:fringe view. Now, looking at the dictionaries you've mentioned, [2][3] both define continents as large land masses, both naming Australia and Antarctica as examples. They define "land mass" as [4][5] large bodies of land, with Collins explicitly noting continuous. The land of Tasmania is not continuous with mainland Australia, so per the Collins dictionary you cited, the mainland of Australia, being the large continuous land mass it is, is a continent, and is therefore not an island. On the other hand, Oxford is quite happy to not draw some arbitrary line of whatever makes a continent not an island, allowing any land surrounded by water to be an island, potentially up to Afro-eurasia (which is far larger than Antarctica).

Ideas such as continents, defined as they are by arbitrary human convention rather than any real criteria, are going to be vague and potentially inconsistent. Our wikipedia pages follow the convention of separating continents and islands, like Collins does. Do some consider the continental bodies to be islands? Yes they do, but we either include all landmasses or we draw the line somewhere. As a final point, both definitions provided merely mention "water". By this, we could say Africa is an island separated from Eurasia by the Suez Canal, and North and South America are islands separated by the Panama Canal. Going further, each landmass could be divided further through various rivers and canals (except Antarctica I suppose, that's a fairly solid mass of ice, with most liquid water being underground). Looking at things using basic definitions leads to far more interesting ideas than just some continental mainland being an island, but in the end we have to pick one position to take, and the one we currently use is common outside of wikipedia, and is quite stable here. That's the WP:Consensus, and no user here has seen any convincing reason to change it. CMD (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@CMD:

1) I have said this several times now. Firstly, for the sake of this argument we were using the seven-continent system. Any mention of any other system or Afro-eurasia is irrelevent. This has become filibustering.

2) The sources you provided define coninents as land masses. That is a plural, meaning more than one. The mainland of Tasmania is a land mass (singular, meaning one), the mainland of Australia is a land mass (singular). Together they make up part of the continent of Australia. As you so patronisingly put it: "I shouldn't have to show that to you"

3) As PaleCloudedWhite has pointed out below, you are also putting more than one source together to attempt to come to your own conclusions, which is not how Wikipedia works (see WP:SYNTH), although apparantly this advise only applies to me. Hows that for nuetrality?--Jimbon132 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(Jimbon132, the advice applies to all editors - I had not intended to make you feel singled out. There are many guidelines for editing Wikipedia, and sometimes we all need a reminder about them.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Jimbon132, a problem with your approach to defining which is the largest island , is that you are putting more than one source together and drawing a logical conclusion, but unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't work like that. If you locate a source which defines what a sub-continent and/or island is, then look at the defined areas of suitable candidates and make a choice accordingly, then whereas that might seem to make logical sense, it isn't how sources are used in Wikipedia (see WP:SYNTH). Even outside of Wikipedia this methodology is - in this instance - an incomplete method of analysis, as it doesn't take all previously published sources into account (which may have drawn different conclusions for justifiable reasons). For Wikipedia's purposes, what is required are reliable secondary sources (see WP:IRS, if you have not already done so) which explicitly state that Australia (or Antarctica, or wherever) is either a continent or an island - it is what they state that matters, not whether (or not) their statements appear logical. So far you have cited a source which you state refers to Australia as an island, but unfortunately this is cherry-picking; what really needs to be done (if you really wish to pursue this) is to collate as many reliable sources as possible, and then see overall what the consensus turns out to be. I wish I had more sources (and time) available to hand than I have, for I would present them to supplement the one I have provided so far. Should all the most reliable sources be collated together, I am perfectly open to the possibility that the majority of them will state that Australia is the world's largest island, but I strongly suspect that that will not be the case. Furthermore, it is imperative that you adopt a similarly open approach. You should not seek to find sources which support your own ideas/preferences, but rather seek to neutrally report them, giving due weight as necessary. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite I agree with you that I am using sources to show some basic facts and using logic to derive new conclusions based on these facts. Which is a method that has been used for thousands of years to prove the truth, however does not comply with Wikipedia's approach of only citing sources. In this case, Im sure most of them will say that Greenland is the largest island so this argument cannot be won on Wikipedia at this time. But if Wikipedia's approach was around when the consensus was that the world was flat, then that is what Wikipedia would say and the average Joe who could prove that is was not would not get a voice unless he could persuade the "reliable sources" which were largely blinded by convention. So in this way, Wikipedia is not truely "open to anyone" as it represents itself. It's more of a giant collection of sources (it's more than that obviously, but you get the point). I don't believe this approach is in the best interests of Wikipedia or the community it serves, but that is another issue and obviously not consensus. --Jimbon132 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia reflects the established consensus, rather than pioneering new theories. That's the nature of the beast. People who wish to change the consensus do so via the established routes - scientific research and publication, artistic works, protests etc. If Wikipedia led the debates, rather than following them, it would be tossed around from pillar to post as individuals came up with their own new theories, so Wikipedia's approach is perhaps not such a bad thing. :) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

FRESH VIEWPOINT: The only way to resolve this is going to be through robust sourcing. The underlying conflict way back at the top of this thread was dispute over what constitutes the largest island in the world. The only - and also official WP policy - way to sort this is by citing existing WP:NOTABLE lists of islands. If there are lists in conflict with each other, you need a sentence like "Some sources consider Australia the largest island in the world[A][B][C] (although others consider this to be Greenland [X][Y][Z])". Note that this issue is distinct from trying to write "Australia is an island", which would need to be cited separately, and again you are likely to end up with a "Some sources consider... but others say..." scenario. This is an OK outcome, and the only truly impartial way of handling this. Incidentally, has anyone headed over to island to check out the talk pages? I suspect you may be duplicating a dispute they've already had (and hopefully resolved) over there. Hope this helps, and remember to keep it civil and WP:AGF-y, guys. DanHobley (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with CMD and PaleCloudedWhite. Rarely is there "only one way to resolve" a WP conflict. A knee-jerk inclusion of "some sources say" for every fringe theory is not the only solution whenever someone finds a few sources that conflict.

In this case, the relevant academic community** has long reached a consensus, that Greenland is the largest island, Australia the smallest continent. Predominantly so. Right or wrong. That results in claims that Antarctica or Australia are the world's largest islands as borderline WP:Fringe; i.e., "exceptional claims." Under WP:V,:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include.....apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources (and)..... claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions.

Prevailing view and mainstream assumptions are well established in this case. Thus, various exceptional claims, such as "Australia is the largest island", would need "multiple mainstream sources....within the relevant community" and we've not seen that and I doubt that we will. Until we do, the article should remain as is. As CMD summed it up, "in the end we have to pick one position to take (because, as he correctly points out, islands and continents are by geographic definition mutually exclusive categories), and the one we currently use is common outside of wikipedia, and is quite stable here."

BTW, Attaching Oceania or not attaching adjacent islands in the Pacific is not relevant, as worldwide adjacent islands (Great Britain, Madagascar, Sri Lanka) are commonly "attached" to continents.

**(geography, not geology, as this article primarily addresses the most common public usage of "continent", not the plate tectonics use of the word) DLinth (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. My point was more that a *change* would need a number of notable sources in list form. We should keep an open mind if someone wants to try to assemble such a list of lists, but as of now, there's no grounds for change. DanHobley (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Since when Australia is a continent? And since when North and South America are continents? What about Cental America then? The continent is Oceania, and the continent is America (not the country EEUU) North, Central and South America. Who wrote this article, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.124.96 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Go read the references at Continent. That article is pretty clear. DanHobley (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your use of "EEUU" gives you away. In English, there is no such country either by name or by abbreviation. In English, there are such continents as North America, South America and Australia. In Spanish, the abbreviation for "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" is "EEUU". In Spanish, the (relevant) continents are "America" and "Oceania". Why are you attempting to force an English language website into a Spanish conception of the continents? Especially since this website already mentions these other conceptions. I have no problem with this page mentioning other continental systems, but the primary one (the one mentioned in the lead and the one defaulted to unless specified) must remain the 7 continent system used by most native English speakers. Why is it that the presence of the Spanish (or Russian, or Chinese, or whatever) versions of the continent system causes no problems for most native English speakers, but the use of the English language conventions on an English language website causes you and many others to state that these conceptions are flat-out wrong? --Khajidha (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Greenland is usually not seen as the largest island, textbooks that I've read always identify Australia as the largest island. But technicaly the largest island is afro-eurasia, as by the definition of island it is a body of land surrounded by water.Enkidu6 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, because the sources I am familiar with always identify Greenland as the largest island and Australia as the smallest continent. The exclusion of continental mainlands from consideration as "islands" is usually not directly mentioned. --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitions

Well, I merged three official english definitions for "continent", that are fully referenced... Chipmunkdavis and Khajidha both undid my work without further explications. If you want to undo it again, first explain your problem here.

Here are my merged definitions:

A continent is one of the six or seven very large divisions of land on Earth. Each division includes a large contiguous continental landmass — ideally surrounded by water — and the related continental shelf and islands .

Adrien16 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You have it backwards. We restored the long standing consensus after you changed it. You need to provide reasons for your changes. --Khajidha (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

no it's not backwards. Here is my reasons to change: I provided fully referenced definitions. There is no fight about the definition of a continent here, only a fight about Australia/Oceania. I was reversed because my previous version also included a modification of that point. I corrected that but the definitions are neutral dictionary definitions. So it is your turn to provide full references showing the definitions are not correct... Adrien16 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

All of your definitions are already covered in the appropriate sections. It makes no sense for you to state that there are "6 or 7" continents and then go on to list exactly 7. The ambiguity of the one statement contradicts the precision of the other. Aside from that, combining the definitions as you did is synthesis. We are not allowed to make a merged definition from three separate definitions. --Khajidha (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Like Khajidha said, we already cover all the definitions in the article, all with references, and the lead already notes the 7-continent system as the most common one. The WP:lead is meant to be a summary of the body. If you feel something is in the body but not represented in the lead adequately, note that here. If something is missing in the body add it there so it can be seen in context. CMD (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

---

1) Goal of the introduction (see WP:lead) is to do a concise synthesis of the article, so yes we are allowed and even we have to do a synthesis here. If you want to teach me how wikipedia works, let this be reciprocal and learn that it is rude to undo an editor's work, even more with no comments ( Collaborating with Other Editors - read the "Minimize Your Reverts" section). Wikipedia asks to minimize the use of the undo function to extreme cases, mainly vandalism. It is recommended to edit directly what you do not like in the work of other editors and explain your edits in the talk section.

2) One of the definition was not included, so I put it in the definition section (the "division" definition).

3) The definition in the introduction is problematic because it lets think that a continent is ONLY a landmass when, according to the geological definition, it also includes islands on the continental shelf, and when, according to the division definition (which is the one used to define most of the continent, Australia excluded), it also includes all the distant islands. What do we do about that?

edit 4) I also think the sentence "Plate tectonics is the geological process and study of the movement, collision and division of continents, earlier known as continental drift." to be irrelevant in that section because what would be expected here, is what is a continent according to the geology, therefore talking about the conceptual division between continental crust and oceanic crust, that defines what is geologically considered as a continent or not. However, I agree that is relevant here to mention that the plates actually move.

Adrien16 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Synthesis of our article is entirely different from synthesis of the sources. Your addition, saying a continent is a division of land, doesn't add anything. That's common to all definitions, the question is how they are divided. The bit about countries seems completely tangential, as again under every definition countries can be assigned to a continent or divided between them. CMD (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

---

no, under the definitions in that article, countries can or cannot be linked to a continent. Most pacific islands for example, are not bounded to any continent according the landmass definition. According to the division definition, you take all land on earth, you divide it into 6 or 7 parts, and those divisions are the continents (their frontiers is a completely different question). It looks that the concept is quiet obvious to catch for some and not all for others...it has to be represented in a way in that article. This definition is widely used (see UN organization for example or the wikipedia page listing countries by continent - all the countries are present).Adrien16 (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

---

What you call the division definition is just the other definitions with all islands included in some way. There's also no reason for there to be 6 or 7. That countries can be included in a continent doesn't make them relevant to the definition of a continent. CMD (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There is also no requirement that continents contain all the land on earth. The definitions that I am most familiar with only extend from the mainland to islands on the continental shelves, oceanic continentsislands (like all those South Pacific islands included in the region of Oceania) are not counted as part of a continent in a strict sense. They may be included with nearby continents for simplified lists, but are not truly part of them. --Khajidha (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

---

It depends on the point of view. For many english-speaking people, the added definition is the only strict definition (continent as the mainland would be an old obsolete point of view, like when British used to talk about Europe as the continent, not including UK). When you live on the mainland part of a continent, you can have various definitions of what is a continent and it does not really matter because it does not change the fact that you still live on the same continent. When you live on an island, like an english-speaking islands, say Bahamas or Jamaica, then it starts to really matter to know what is your continent. It particularly matters when you go on wikipedia to discover that other 'continental' people deny your American identity because the island is on the Caribbean continental crust. And that for you to be on the American continent, we will need "extrapolating the concept to its extreme" to include oceanic islands (which is quiet false actually, because as Adrien16 recalled somewhere, many of those islands are not oceanic but on different continental plates, like the major Carribbean plate or the micro-continent Zealandia). The questions of six or seven divisions is quiet irrelevant but it looks like it is a quoted definition. So I agree with Adrien16 that this definition is very important and should be highlighted or put into the introduction. Anu23 (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The added definition is in no way strict, as it lies entirely on people's personal interpretations (much like every other definition). No-one is denying anyone else's identity, and the mainland definition has absolutely nothing to do with any particular bit of continental crust, Caribbean or otherwise. In addition, for almost all English speakers, American refers to the United States, so they wouldn't give Bahamians or Jamaicans an "American identity". Lastly, oceanic islands are on continental plates. The entire surface of the earth is made up of continental plates. CMD (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

no, the entire surface of earth is not made up of continental plates: the Caribbean plate, e.g., is mostly an oceanic tectonic plate (see Caribbean Plate and the difference between continental and oceanic crust). The caribbean plate was a bad example but the point is still valid for many 'oceanic islands' that are actually on continental crust - like Zealandia- that could not be linked to other continents (because the mainland definition extends only to islands on the continental shelf). That is why the 'division' definition is still important, because then you just have to divide the world into several large continental mainlands and attach all the islands to the nearest mainland. Anu23 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

I have just seen your edit: are you kidding? Why are you so disrespectful? I have given you very good reasons why the division definition should be given a space in that section. You deleted it from the intro, you gave it a few words only on the definition section, crushing the main idea, so that the reference does not even make sense here anymore. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that definition and if you don't, should you not just let the people that do understand it explain the point in that section? Sorry, don't take it personally, but I reverted your edit after just explaining why here.Anu23 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the following sentence "When you live on an island, like an english-speaking islands, say Bahamas or Jamaica, then it starts to really matter to know what is your continent." Why would it matter what continent you are on or even if you are on one at all? There seems to be some strange compulsion to put every country on earth into some neatly labeled box called a continent, but I don't see how reality matches up to that. The real world is messy. Many things don't fit into nice neat categories. Why does that bother you so much? That's the biggest problem with these proposed edits, they seem to be trying to make one overarching all inclusive definition with no ambiguity when there simply isn't such a thing to be had here. --Khajidha (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

@Anu23, when continental plates are discussed, they include plates, such as the Caribbean one, that mostly contain oceanic crust, and others, such as the Eurasian plate, that contain mostly continental crust. They are also never used to look at continents outside the field of geology, and similarly Zealandia is never seen as a continent outside specific geological discussions where other areas such as Madagascar are also continents. The division definition simply evolved out of the other definitions, it was not created on its own. Except for when discussing the plates, the idea of continents has never been separated from the large landmasses of the earth. That's why Merriam-Webster specifically mentions 6 or 7, as these are the numbers of large landmass people have denoted as continents. CMD (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

I think the problem is different. The main definitions of continent tells it is large mass of land and then it is discussed if we have to include the island or not. In the way the words are chosen in the definition and extent section, it looks like it is an extreme point of view to have the oceanic islands included. In the facts however, Europe almost always includes all its oceanic islands, same for Asia, Americas or Africa (look up the respective wiki pages) but not for Australia. The definition used for Australia seems to be the narrowest one. I think the definition section have to reflect the common usage (the definition used for Australia would be the exception). Then the main definition should be the broader one, and then, we should mention that narrower definitions exist, and that Australia continent falls within those last definitions. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrien16 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead in the definition section is about how the definitions aren't consistent. The point of the initially given definition is to explain how inconsistent its application is. The Extent of Continent subsection, which deals with the issue we discuss, goes narrow--> wide, which I prefer due to that being the historical trend (more or less). It does note Australia at the end as the more extreme example. CMD (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is the same problem in the extent section:

"Extrapolating the concept to its extreme, some geographers group the Australasian continental plate with other islands in the Pacific into one continent called Oceania. This allows the entire land surface of the Earth to be divided into continents or quasi-continents."

When you read that at the end of the paragraph, it really looks like grouping a large landmass with the distant islands and calling that a continent, is an extreme point of view (understand barely used). As I stated before, it does not reflect the common usage of the concept of continent...I think we should rephrase all of this for neutrality.Adrien16 (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It means that it takes the idea to the extreme, not that the idea is rare. How would you rephrase it? CMD (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In the definition section, I would replace

Continents are sometimes extended beyond the major landmasses, in a way that every bit of land on earth is included in a continent.

with

Continents can also be extended well beyond the major landmasses, in a way that every bit of land on earth is included in a continent.

.

In the extent section:

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent may go beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe and Madagascar part of Africa. Extrapolating the concept to its extreme, some geographers group the Australasian continental plate with other islands in the Pacific into one continent called Oceania.

with

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent goes beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe, Madagascar part of Africa and the Australasian continental plate is grouped with other islands in the Pacific into one continent called Oceania.

Adrien16 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No objections to the change in the definition section, but I don't think the extent section should be so definitive. Madagascar is included with Africa almost all the time, as opposed to the Pacific islands, and culturally there's a massive gap between bits of the pacific and Australia. CMD (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Understood. What about:

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent goes beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe and Madagascar part of Africa. When grouping Australia with other islands in the Pacific, the continent is called Oceania.

In that way, it is neutral because it is conditional rather than definitive.Adrien16 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You're still using a definitive "goes", and removing the note that Oceania is unique in including far more far-flung islands than the other continents. I don't understand what the aim of that text change is. CMD (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the change is to be definitive with this last extended definition given that it is probably the most used definition for all continents except for Australia. Let's keep the goes and make the Australia note less definitive, with a conditional and a potential:

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent goes beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe or Madagascar part of Africa. When grouping Australia with other islands in the Pacific, the continent can also be called Oceania.

I don't want to remove the note completely because then, the only mention to Oceania is very far in the text, which again, does not reflect its wide usage. Is it ok?Adrien16 (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

But is the "wide usage" of Oceania as a name for a continent or is it used as a name of a region? As I mentioned on Talk:Oceania, many of your listed sources there are not unambiguously using Oceania as a continental name. Chipmunkdavis is right, your use of "goes" here is putting more emphasis on the view of Oceania as a continent than the reliable English language sources warrant. --Khajidha (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Been lurking, but have to agree with Khajidha's salient points that...

there is a compulsion among some WP editors, some atlas publishers, others to group every speck of land, but.....

when this is done, source after source over decades do not call these groupings "continents"; they are simply groupings or regions... "Oceania" and other non-continental groupings should be are are covered elsewhere in WP, not in an article titled "Continent."

Oceania is so very rarely identified in sources as a "continent" as to be not deserving of a mention in the lede.

Plate tectonics defines continental plates. "Continental plates" does not equal "continents." "Continents" incorporates physical geography, separation by water, proximity of land, and to a lesser degree culture. Definitions of "continents" were around centuries before the science of plate tectonics and understandings of the extent of plates even existed; i.e., pieces of land don't "jump" from one continent from time to time because that piece of land is now understood to be on a different plate (or has recently changed its political affiliation or joined the EU.) Geology and tectonics are not (and in past centuries could not have been) the primary drivers of the definitions of "continents"....i.e., the western Azores are not on the "continent" of North America.

Just my two cents....from years of tracking and publishing geographic "groupings" like this as a professional geographer for three decades: Oceania = region, yes; Oceania = continent...No....That's Australia. DLinth (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

-Khajidha, I answered on the Oceania page, there are completely unambiguous references of Oceania as a continent. The definition section is not about Oceania. The 'goes' here is about the fact that the extended definition of continent is a cultural construct widely used (for all continents except for Oceania) and should be therefore definitive. The specificity of the Australia case is that it changes its name for Oceania when using that definition and it is all that is said here, nothing about the fact that it is the common usage. We could add something after that last note saying that the common usage is to use the narrow definition for Australia and the extended definition for all other continents, no?

-DLinth, as you agreed, the common definition of a continent is the cultural-political extended one. It looks like that definition does not apply to Australia. It is quiet important to mention it. If not, it misleads people either to think that the common definition of a continent is the narrowest, because of the case of Australia (and then Island is not European, neither Jamaica is in America), or to apply the extended definition to Australia and then think the common usage is to call the continent Oceania. Adrien16 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

- Adrien16, disagree.... The common definition of continents is generally consistent in textbooks, atlases, encyclopedias: the mainland and islands that are close to it. Oceania as a "continent", meaning that all Pacific islands are on the same "continent" as Australia (!), is simply WP:Fringe and its exclusion is neither "narrow" nor "misleading."

Iceland, Jamaica (and Madagascar and all the others commonly "associated" with a continent) are universally within 500 to 600 miles of the mainland; Oceania couldn't be more different with New Caledonia, the closest significant component to the mainland, at 800 miles, on up to 3000 miles (!) for French Polynesia-Pitcairn!

"Oceania" as a continent just doesn't pass the WP "local usage" smell test. Please tell me that you're going to walk up to someone in Pitcairn or Papeete or most anywhere else in this category and ask them, "What continent do you live on?" and they're going to say "the same continent as Australia." Unlike Jamaicans who might say "N. America" or "America", Cape Verdians who might say "Africa", you're just not going to get "the continent of Oceania" as an answer. Someone in Guam will associate with Australia as "their" contient....Really? This is fringe stuff.

I also don't subscribe to the compulsion to shoehorn every speck of land onto a "continent." Simply put, St. Helena, Kerguelen, and much of the Pacific generally do not consider themselves (nor should we) to be "on a continent" or "part of a continent."

BTW, no, I actually said above that the cultural-political aspects are and have always been less present in the "continent" construct than other considerations such as physical geography......and besides, a good bit of Oceania is culturally quite different from Australia the country. DLinth (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are fighting when we agree. I'm not talking about Oceania, I am talking about the definition of a continent. Let's break it in two parts. 1) first, is someone opposite to the following modifications, to reflect the common usage of the concept of continent as a cultural construct (so an extended region more than a landmass) like it is very common for Europe, Africa, Americas or Asia:

-In the definition section, replace

Continents are sometimes extended beyond the major landmasses, in a way that every bit of land on earth is included in a continent.

with

Continents can also be extended well beyond the major landmasses, in a way that every bit of land on earth is included in a continent.

.

-And in the extent section, replace

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent may go beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe and Madagascar part of Africa. Extrapolating the concept to its extreme, some geographers group the Australasian continental plate with other islands in the Pacific into one continent called Oceania.

with

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent goes beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe and Madagascar part of Africa.

2) Then, we have to decide what do we do about Oceania? I don't think it matters the distance of the islands to the mainland. I asked people from Fiji islands, New Caledonia and Tahiti, they all consider themselves on the continent of Oceania and they are chocked by the fact one could consider that either they are on Australia or on no continent at all. So yes, on those islands, they feel in Oceania, even if there is no cultural unity. I would say the cultural unity in Asia or Europe is very low - it is subjective, so irrelevant and does not change that most people, including geographers, use the extended concept of continent for their continent, except for Australia. It sounds to me that 1) it is important to explain that for Australia, a narrow definition of continent is common in English, and that 2) if one wants to use an extended definition of the continent of Australia, one has to call it Oceania.Adrien16 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read Lewis, Martin W.; Kären E. Wigen (1997). The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 40. ISBN 0-520-20742-4, ISBN 0-520-20743-2. "The joining of Australia with various Pacific islands to form the quasi continent of Oceania ...", but no serious geographer goes outside his field to call Oceana a continent. Note even the word "quasi" in the quote. Geographers are not authoritative on continents, continents are geological things. There is no continent Oceana. There is Australia (continent) and then Zealandia (continent) if you want to generalise to underwater continents. Some things, like Hawaii and Iceland, do not belong to continents. Taken too deeply, you must understand that continent is an artificial human construct, and you would do better to be talking about tectonic plates. I think the mention of some book reporting some geographer mentioning quasi Oceana continent is WP:UNDUE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Continents are definitely not geological. Tectonic plates are, but not continents. Continents were discussed over a thousand years before tectonic plates were even imagined. In fact, this assertion you make, that "continents are geological things", is in complete opposition to your later statement, "continent is an artificial human construct", which is true. I doubt any serious geographer deals with continents much at all, as they likely understand how arbitrary they are. This artificial construct sometimes includes seeing Oceania as a continent; it's definitely not an uncommon viewpoint, in my experience. The Myth of Continents is a good read, which discusses the different views of continents. We have to deal with the idea of Oceania as a continent in this page somehow. CMD (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, you are part right, although there is a geological view of the meaning of continent. I'll try again. You can take a continent as part of historic geography. In that case, it is about the land above the sea. If you want to extend into continental shelves, getting into contenental crust verse ocean crust, then you are getting into geology, or tectonic plates. In neither case is Oceania a continent. I don't think this page needs to deal with Oceania as a continent.

Perhaps we agree that historically, maybe even currently, some people/publications treat Ocean like a continent. Atlases, for example, commonly use a common font for naming the continents, and then use the same font and size to name Oceania. I don't think it fair to conclude that these atlases, or their authors, are asserting that Oceania is a continent. They appear to be treating the several named continents, plus Oceania, as regions of global significance.

I am confident that no serious and repudable authority has explicity treated Oceania as a continent beyond treating it as a region at the level of the continents. If one has, I am yet to hear of it.

I think the last paragraph of the section "Extent of continents" should be cut. I can't believe that any reliable source really treats Easter Island as part of a continent in any reasonable sense of the word. It is not consistent with the lede of the article. If not cut, the "some geographers" weasel wording needs tightening.

The mention of Oceania at the end of "Number of continents" is fine. Some altases do name Oceania in a way that suggests it is akin to a continent. However, one shouldn't read too much prose from an annotated atlas illustration.

A few mentions of Oceania are fine. The article Oceania should be linked. However, it is appropriate that Zealandia get more direct mentions, as Zealandia is more of a continent than Oceania. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It is precisely because many atlases treat Oceania as on a par with 'real continents', or whatever you may call them, that this page needs to discuss it, even if just to note it's usually not considered a continent. If the page doesn't do this, that is a different matter. This article should cater for readers who very likely will have seen Oceania listed as a continent. I have yet to see Zealandia used in anything other than a specific geological sense, and even then it's qualified as a micro-continent. CMD (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

outdent. Yes, it would be good to say something along the lines of that Oceania is sometimes listed among continents, but that it is not usually considered a continent, but a region. Maybe link to Subregion#Oceania. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like useful clarification, if it can be sourced. CMD (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A decent, sourced, clarification, is the lede of Oceania. An important point is that it is misleading to pull the third sentence "The term is sometimes used more specifically to denote a continent ..." in the absence of the first sentence stating the more usual "Oceania is a region ..." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So....did this discussion actually go anywhere? Are any of the points brought up not already covered by the article as is? I just don't see what needs to be changed.--Khajidha (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

7 Continents?

In all Latin america and Spain, we say we have 8 contients: South America CENTRAL America North America Oceania (Australia, New Zeland, etc) Africa Europe Asia Antartica

That model is not in this article. Why? --Llamaradaipa (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Do you write it so in verifiable places?
  You seem to be talking about socially significant global regions, not continents. Australia and New Zealand do not belong to the same continent according to any reasonable definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that every Latin American who has brought up the enumeration/naming of continents before has claimed that there are 6 continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, Antarctica and America (as one continent with 3 subcontinents: North, Central and South) so I find your claim a little odd. To SmokeyJoe: while I do not use the concept, there are many sources that explicitly include Australia, New Zealand and the various Pacific islands in a continent called "Oceania". Whether this is "reasonable" hinges on whether you feel that every piece of land must be part of one or another continent. --Khajidha (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the original poster misunderstood the use of the term central America. Central America generally refers to the area between southern mexico and northern South America. It's not a continent, but a name for an area, like "Siberia", or "North Africa". Not separate continents, just large areas of a continent. 68.197.141.28 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Population of Antarctica

Does it make any sense to list Villa Las Estrellas as the most populous city in Antarctica when the population of the continent is zero? Rojomoke (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It does actually have a population, theres a number of scientists who live there year round. 68.197.141.28 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)