Talk:Australia (continent)

This continent includes NZ in all theories listed in the "continent" article

While this article states that the Australian doesn't include NZ, the continent article list NZ as part of Australia/Australasia/Oceania/[Insert your name here] in every of the 5, 6 or 7 continents theory. Therefore, this article is inconsistant with the main one. Just look at this image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Continental_models.gif --zorxd (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree they are inconsistent. I think this one is more sensible. Are there any sources we can cite that group Hawaii as part of the Australian continent? -- Avenue (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article more sensible? What continent would you place New Zealand on, then? There is no widely taught, widely accepted continent model that divides the world into more than 7 continents, hence New Zealand and the pacific islands are part of the Australian continent by common convention, even if they are geologically or even geographically separate. Saying on this page New Zealand is not part of the Australian continent but of some obscure 'micro continent' called New Zealandia is just stupid. Generally speaking, there are at most 7 continents so unless you want to say New Zealand is part of Antartica it is necessarily part of the Australian continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.61.222 (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Because a continent is "one of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface" (OED). Which, with the greatest respect to all kiwis, NZ just ain't.--Gergyl (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides which, there is no law which stipulates that every country must be part of a continent. Take Fiji, for example. Is that part of Australia or Asia? Clearly it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There's not much 'micro' about it, if you'd go look at the map. Zealandia's half the size of Australia, and not connected to it except by oceanic crust, the same way any other continents are 'connected' to Australia. If you want to qualify 'dry land continents', go right ahead but be either specific or inaccurate. (P.S. If we can go from eight planets in our solar system to nine back to eight, we can certainly expand our minds enough to recount the continents now that we know more.) Corgi (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Population – note not working

What is the population figure 29 million in the summary box based on? The note was not working when I tried to click it. The country Australia have barely 22 million, so where are the other 7 million? Mårten Berglund (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a cref missing a cnote, so there are no references. However, as stated in the article, Tasmania (~500.000) and New Guinea (~7.5 million) are part of the continent. --Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Must change the map so that it does not include Papua New Guinea. Nathan.tang (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oceania

Isn't this now called Oceania? 98.64.66.248 (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. Please see the endless discussions above, esp.: "For Oceania the article states The primary use of the term Oceania is to describe a macrogeographical region that lies between Asia and the Americas, with the Australian continent as the major landmass and consisting of some 25,000 islands in the Pacific. The name Oceania is used because, unlike the other regional groupings, it is the ocean and adjacent seas rather than a continent that link the lands together."--Gergyl (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 98.64.66.248 because I know the "Australian" continent as Oceania to distinguish it from the isolated island of Australia. Our article does say that Oceania is sometimes used to denote the continent, so I don't see why the Australia (continent) article title couldn't be changed to this. I suppose usage varies to such an extent that we are unlikely ever to agree. The OED defines Oceania as "(A collective name for) the islands and island-groups of the Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas, including Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia, and sometimes also Australasia and the Malay Archipelago.". Isn't this the continent? Dbfirs 11:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the Nesias without Australia would not be. — kwami (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Would not be what? Dbfirs 12:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The continent of Australia.

It also wouldn't be the same if Malaysia/Indonesia were included. "Australasia" would be a better match, though still off. — kwami (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Australia is an island. The use of Oceania is supported by the Atlas of Canada, and is used in Latin America and Iberia. I suppose we are really disagreeing on what constitutes a continent. I tend to think in terms of the continental shelf, not a contiguous landmass that excludes adjacent islands. Dbfirs 12:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Eurasia is an island. Oceania is not linked by a continental shelf. In the narrow sense of the word, the only continent (continental shelf) within Oceania is New Zealand-New Caledonia (Zealandia), but that's only a fraction of the expanse of this "continent". In the broad sense of the word, part of the continent of Asia is included. I don't see how either can be considered a continent of its own. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well our article on Torres Strait doesn't give the depth, but claims that is is "very shallow". Does this not count as part of a continental shelf? Do you mean that Asia isn't a continent by your definition? (If so, then I agree!) Our problem is that the real world isn't neatly divided as we would like it to be. Dbfirs 16:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

New Guinea is part of the Australian continent by that def. But Borneo and Sumatra are not. See Sahul, Wallace line, Zealandia. — kwami (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I see as the logical division, and that continent is what my atlas calls "Oceania", though it does include New Zealand etc. I do rather like the idea that the British Isles are not part of Europe, but then Japan would not be part of Asia. Dbfirs 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The core of Oceania is the open Pacific, which would include New Zealand but not Australia. Extended conceptions include not just Australia but insular SE Asia. If you just want Australia + New Zealand, the name is Australasia (the lands south of Asia). There's also the cognitive dissonance of using the name 'Oceania' for a continent, when 'continent' is an antonym of 'oceanic'. — kwami (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"Oceania" has always included Australia in my usage, and in that of the atlases I have seen, and, rather than "cognitive dissonance", I see the word as aptly descriptive of a region that is mainly ocean. I suppose that if others don't see it that way, then I can't argue for a change of name, but I think modern atlases tend to agree on Oceania for the region. Whether it can logically be called a single continent is a separate argument for Geologists. Most people think of a continent as a logical (or sometimes illogical) division of the surface of the Earth, as in our article except that my atlas used "Oceania" instead of "Australia (continent)". Do we not need to move our viewpoint to match that of modern atlases? Dbfirs 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for the region, like the Arctic. That doesn't make it a "continent". Per the OED, a continent is "continuous land, mainland". Polynesia is not a "continent". Also, the OED defines Oceania as "A general name for the islands of the Pacific and its adjacent seas." — kwami (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK if you want to be pedantic about continents then, as I joked above, the British Isles and Japan are not part of any continent, and Europe, Asia and Africa are all one, as are the Americas, but no-one actually uses the "OED definition". Dbfirs 00:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure they do. Continents are land, not water. That's common to everyone's definition. Open sea and scattered coral atolls are not a "continent".

Britain and Japan are part of the Eurasian landmass, just as New Guinea is part of the Australian. If you wish to be pedantic, America and Eurafrasia are a single landmass, so the continents would be that plus Sahul, Zealandia, Madagascar, and various smaller bits which are geological continents. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not what out Continent article says (though it does give it as an option). I was criticising the over-pedantic and leaning towards modern usage, as evidenced by atlases. I suppose whatever convention we adopt, there will be citicisms. It's impossible to be consistent because the surface of the Earth isn't. Dbfirs 07:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there.

There was a long discussion on that article about using "Oceania", and eventually a decision against it. There's no question that "Australia" is in the ballpark, but "Oceania" is not so clear. In any case, this article is not about Oceania, regardless of whether that is considered a continent. — kwami (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we would need some adjustments to the text if we changed the title. Perhaps it would be better to expand our article on Oceania to reflect the usage in modern atlases. Dbfirs 09:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The map needs fixing?

This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent has this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Continental_models.gif which shows New Zealand and other islands as a part of the Australia continent, but this article has this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia-New_Guinea_(orthographic_projection).svg which doesn't. Furthermore, this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealandia_(continent) says New Zealand is pretty much it's own continent, yet that page also only lists 7 continents, and NZ isn't colored in on the Australia continent map. So does this mean that NZ isn't a part of a continent, but that's OK, because we don't decide the continents in such a way that every part of the planet gets to be a part of a continent? But then why does that article say there's a New Zealandia continent? And if it's not a part of the Australia continent, wouldn't that mean the continental models gif needs to be changed? I'm so confused. byelf2007 (talk) 5 July 2011

There has never actually been a definition for what makes up a continent, and current ideas are simply longlasting irrational choices. In the popular 7 continent model, one area covers all of the Pacific islands and Australia, and is called either Australia, Australasia, or Oceania. Each of these terms can again mean something else. Zealandia is called a continent due to it having its own separate continental shelf. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparative continental size

The article says that Australia is the 'smallest continent', then only a paragraph later mentioned Zealandia, which is about half Australia's size (albeit mostly drowned). It can't be both the smallest yet larger than another continent - this needs some well-chosen qualifiers, please. I am hesitant to go after the introduction with a blue pencil myself, but will if needed.

Corgi (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Zealandia is a partially submerged continental fragment, which is not a continent as it is generally understood. Cornellbob (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)