Talk:Continent

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)

Australia

"The names Oceania or Australasia are sometimes used in place of Australia. For example, the Atlas of Canada names Oceania,[9] as does the model taught in Latin America and Iberia"

Australia = Country =/= Continent

I have never heard anyone call Australia a continent before (other than by young children), just the offical name Australasia and on afew occasions Oceania. Anyone else fancy changing this? It's only a simple mistake, but being somthing taught at primary school (makes me wonder how old the person who added that line is) it should definately be fixed, but I can't be arsed to fix more primary school errors on wiki. They really need to change it to the Free Ecyclopdia to edit for those who atleast have a basic school education, very tiring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.172.166 (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have always know Australia as a continent, but I more recently have heard other names. I know it's the name of the country, but isn't the entire landmass named Australia? I've never considered islands or countries around it part of the Australian continent. There are several conventions of naming and counting continents, but I don't think any of them can be considered "wrong." Kman543210 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Countries and continents really have nothing to do with each other. Countries are political divisions and continents are geographical. I'm 48 years old and I've never heard anyone claim that Australia wasn't a continent until now. The official name of Australia is "Commonwealth of Australia" not Australasia. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this is Oceania, I think we should change it to that. Views? 92.3.48.22 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous for Britannica (the ref for the first line) to say Australia is the name of the continent which encompasses many of the southern Pacific islands. This really should be changed to Oceania.Phelim123 (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that 'southern Pacific islands' were part of the Australian continent. Associated with maybe, but not a part of the mainland continent. Kman543210 (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Always known the continent as Australasia or Oceania myself. One example: just grabbed The Times Concise Atlas of the World (Aus/Nz) edition (1989), which refers to the continent as 'Australasia'. Our other atlas, Goode's World Atlas (1966), refers to 'Oceania'. I think there's just a few ego-centric Aussies saying otherwise here. Needs to be changed in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.158.65 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Those atlases are refering to the REGION of Oceania / Australasia, not the CONTINENT.

It is not just the small Pacific Islands, you also have New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. Australasia and Oceania are the correct terms

So how about changing the references in article to OCEANIA? whould that be ok? since it seems we all taught the same at school :) HuGo_87 (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not okay, because Oceania is a region, not a continent.

I just had this debate today and thought I'd check the Wiki, only to see the same debate. I'm an Australian, I have heard our continent variously refered to as "Australia", "Australasia" and "Oceania". To me the most salient point seems to be that New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Fiji, etc etc need to belong to a continent... which would make us "Oceania" not just "Australia" or "Australasia" (which has been described as only Australia and New Zealand). The decision to name our continent seems to be based on the geographic rather than the geopolitical. Let's correct this to read Oceania. Monique Antoinette (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am Australian, and have never heard anyone here refer to islands such as New Zealand, PNG, New Caledonia or any others being referred to as part of the Australian continent. Australian usage in my experience distinguishes between continents and islands. Usage may be different elsewhere. To an Australian, New Zealand etc aren't part of a continent because they are islands. Tasmania is part of the country of Australia but is not part of the continent of Australia, because it's an island.210.10.106.195 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The word Continent is incorrectly used anyway. Islands ARE included. The Netherlands for example, being part of Europe, has its own islands, but these islands are not referred to as separate 'continents'. By this logic, Australia and New Zealand etc are part of the Oceania continent. Australia is not a continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.132.106 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummm ... no ... Oceania is not a continent. It is a region.

I started this talk thread about this awhile ago. The general consensus seems to indicate that the "continent" should be described as Australasia or Oceania, so how come it hasn't been changed on the main page? Maybe somthing should be included in the main article as to the two different names this continent has? I have still never heard Australia being refered to as a Continent, as it's it a country. The Continent takes in to consideration islands aswell. If people think it shouldn't, then are we British not Europeans then? Which obviously sounds absurd as the UK is definately considered part of Europe, just as New Zealand/PNG ect. is considered part of Australasia/Oceania, not apart of Australia. Infact, I have a dare for anyone who still think New Zealanders are Australian, go and call a kiwi an Aussie and see how they like it. I bet the reaction will be less then "friendly".

• edit* thought i'd add a defintion from wiktionary of a contient, "A large contiguous landmass that is at least partially surrounded by water, together with any islands on its continental shelf", this confirms that we should not be calling New Zealand, PNG ect as part of Australia, as Australia refers specifically to the the Country in control of the biggest land mass of Australisia/Oceania.

Also, theres no mention on wikipedia that Australia is a continent (other than this page), yet there are articles on Australisia and Oceania being the continent, how come this page is the only one stating differently? If this isn't changed by someone more literate then myself soon i'll change it myself. It's obviously wrong to call Australia a continent when other Wikipedia/Wiktionary pages contradict it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N00b09123 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention that Australia is a continent? Have you read Australia (continent)? The truth of the matter is that some reliable sources consider Australia to be a continent and others do not (note, though: when people use Australia for a continent, they generally exclude NZ—so this is not about calling kiwis Aussies, which I agree would be foolish). We can't claim that one side or another is wrong, that would be original research. If you find an article where one of the views is given undue weight, please go ahead and neutralize it. —JAO • T • C 09:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

well , in that case why dont we call the UK another continent? 205.175.225.22 (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Sergio

Because nobody else does. Wikipedia is not the place for original thought. —JAO • T • C 21:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the continent is called 'Australia'. The term was popularised by Matthew Flinders, the first man to circumnavigate Australia, in his publication 'A Voyage to Terra Australis'. For example, the colony of Western Australia was so called because it comprised the western portion of the Australian landmass. The country Australia did not exist at that time so had no bearing of the name of that colony. The political entity 'Australia' took it's name from the landmass. --MartianBeerPig 21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A continent does not have to be all above sea level. The continental landmass on which the island of Australia is located also includes the islands of Tasmania, of New Guinea, and the islands in the Torres Strait, etc. Wikipedia article Australia (Continent) goes a long way to explaining this. The main islands of New Zealand are on a separate microcontinental land mass not connected to Australia. Similarly the island nations of Oceania are located on the tops of seamounts which are completely unconnected with the Australia-New Guinea continental landmass or any other continental landmass. Oceania is a most inappropriate name for that continent which includes the island of Australia. Australia seems to be the usual term in the English-speaking world. However the English-speaking scientific community seems to be in favour of the name Australia-New Guinea for the continent. Gubernatoria (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a matter of perspective. I grappled with this too before making the change earlier, moreso given other content in the article. To clarify: as the Oceania article points out, and as sourced in this and that article, the term is often used in English to refer to one of the continents. Oceania -- which usu. includes Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands -- is more inclusive and little different from, say, Europe or North America, which include islands approximate to the continental mainland (e.g., Iceland and Greenland respectively): in this instance, it is merely a much broader region. Your assertion that 'Australia-New Guinea' is the preferred term in the scientific community (though I don't disagree it is used) is unqualified; it so obviously gives prominence to New Guinea but excludes New Zealand (not insignificant islands which are also approximate to Australia). There is no debate about using just plain ol' Australia (which is also reflected/linked elsewhere in the article), and so I don't disagree with that change and rendition as such. Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We all know the term 'continent' is somewhat fluid in definition, but anyway ... firstly there are 3 Australia's ... the big mainland island, sometimes refered to as a continent; the nation (Commonwealth of), which is a political (human created) entity (& includes Tasmania and smaller islands), and which seems to also call itself the island-continent (which just has to be wrong!); and the 'actual' continent, based on the continental shelf. This latter includes Tasmania and New Guinea, but not New Zealand (hence, to answer the above, why the alternate term is Australia-New Guinea, not Australia-New Guinea-New Zealand). Isn't it great that in general usage we have three differing continents of Australia ?!

Wider than this, 'continent' in the geological (continental shelf) sense falls apart, but is still used, although 'region' might be better, as we are back to human created 'political' grouping. Australasia seems to be Australia (continent) plus New Zealand, and islands local to these. Oceania is Australasia plus the Pacific islands. If you're going to split the world into 7 (or 6, etc) areas and include every nation on it within one of these areas, Oceania would be the correct term, even if 'continent' isn't. Clear as mud, hey ?! :)

It's true that if you are going to split the world into 7 regions, the Oceania would be a good way to lump the Pacific islands in with Australia. However, there is a difference between "regions" and "continents". In terms of the 7 continents model, certain islands must be excluded. This include the likes of Fiji, Samoa and New Zealand.

Can I suggest that when talking about Australia in these contexts (land masses, not country of), the big island be prefixed mainland Australia, & the Australian 'continent' refer to the continental shelf area. Any chance this being adopted across Wikipedia ? (Ha ha ha) The Yeti (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT Australia. Australia is a country not a continent. The continent is Australasia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is just a cultural difference. In the English speaking countries (and most notably in the Commonwealth). Australia IS considered as a continent without any discussion. On the contrary, in lots of other countries, I think most of mainland Europe, the continent IS Oceania without any discussion. Hence the surprise from the different contributors in front of one or the other solution. So the only solution for this article is not to pick one solution or the other, but it is to state clearly that the definition is not the same depending on the country. An interesting question is: what is the exact list of countries using "Oceania" (I think it is quite large)? Gpeilon (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It may just be a cultural difference, but I have reverted this recent edit. Obviously it was made without even consulting the linked-to references in that sentence (to Britannica and National Geographic) which very clearly and unambiguously indicate 'Australia'. As well, the edit was wholly unsourced: can you provide a reliable source that indicates that Anglo-Saxons reckon the landmass as Australia, etc.? That is not to say that the viewpoint is invalid: far from it, my Collins Atlas and the Atlas of Canada clearly refer to the continent as Oceania, which is particularly germane if one includes islands that are proximate to a main landmass. However, this viewpoint is already equitably dealt with in the article: by listing the two in tandem in the lead, equal weight is unjustifiably given to one variant. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Europeans don't refer to Oceania as being a continent. They refer to it as a region.

Ha ha, in the end, nobody gets anywhere. One of the countries in this debated continent (with the biggest land mass) is named Australia. The continent (which includes those islands around it), is called Oceania by the vast majority of people (sometimes Australasia). Look up Oceana on wikipedia and lets try to keep this encyclopedia consistent. Using 'Australia' is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.12.57 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to add to the mix: Oceania =/= Australasia! Australasia is just Australia and New Zealand. But does not include Papua New Guinea amd many other islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggydude (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Break

This point is sorted. The National Geographic reference which was in the intro clearly refers to Oceania. It should be said that in Commonwealth countries, Australia is considered is considered as a continent and that it is often ignored that most of the World refer to Oceania instead as a continent.Gpeilon (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way this article needs sorting sometimes it says Oceania, like in the National Geographic and sometimes Australia. And the map icon is of Oceania.Gpeilon (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have again reverted this change, owing to lack of consensus and source. The text of the Natl Geographic reference (which is in the footnote, and was changed)[1] clearly indicates Australia; the Britannica reference does so too. Please note that I am very cognizant of the usage of Oceania to sometimes describe that region as a continent (observe that article), but the usual moniker for that landmass in English is Australia. This ambiguity, nonetheless, is reflected (perhaps rightfully) in the article content. Otherwise, you have provided no sources (e.g., re usage in Commonwealth countries) to back your position, neither 4 months ago when you last commented on this or recently. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the position held by Bosonic dressing, and his recent reversion. I am an Australian and I can confirm that everyone in Australia believes they live on a continent called Australia (same name as the nation) and no-one in Australia considers the name of their continent to be Oceania. If some articles in Wikipedia suggest otherwise, those articles should be amended. Australasia is a term commonly used, and is generally understood to include Australia, south-east Asia and nearby island states such as New Zealand, Papua New Guinea. Australasia is not as clearly defined as Australia. Dolphin51 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "in England" (and beyond Commonwealth) and "in English". And I am fully aware of the fact that Australians are unaware of the fact that other people use Oceania. That does not make other region of the world use Australia... I fail to understand how my initial suggestion of an introduction presenting both names was deamed failing equitably by Bosonic who argued that "equal weight is unjustifiably given to one variant". The present introduction is on the contrary in a clear breach of equitability. Cleary several contributors have said that in their country Oceania is the name of the continent. The present article fails equitably as it presents Australia as the main option in the world. A simple look at other Wikipedia editions shows it is not. Without a specific order: Spanish (Oceania), French (Oceania), German (Australia/Oceania), Italian (Oceania), Portuguese (Oceania), Danish (Oceania). So the inclusion of Oceania in the introduction is the normal thing to do. Your request Bosonic to find a reference is all the more peculiar that you have one and that you could include it. It even comes from a Commonwealth countries ("my Collins Atlas and the Atlas of Canada clearly refer to the continent as Oceania"). So I fail to understand how the inclusion in the introduction of this term which is used in Europe and South America at least and is mentionned in a Canadian Atlas should not be included in the introduction for equitably. I suggest to mention in a neutral way in the introduction that the definition of this continent (which is as all the others a convention) is not the same in all the countries of the world.

I don't see why continental Europeans looking at this page should learn while reading this intro that they have been wrong all along about their definition of continents. Failing to present the other option is imposing one cultural definition. This is Wikipedia in English but it is not an English Wikipedia imposing a British vision to the world. As much as I understand that Australian find offensive to discover that other people do not consider their country as a continent, it is offensive for the culture of continental Europeans not to have their definition of a continent included as one of the main option in the intro of this article. Please think a bit about it and you will understand what I mean.Gpeilon (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the references Bosonic gave from Collins Atlas and the Atlas of Canada, I easily found atlas on the internet using Oceania as well: the American WorldAtlas uses the term Australia/Oceania, while the American Mapquest uses Oceania. The French Encyclopedia Quid (which is also printed) uses "Oceania". The German online Encyclopedia online Welt-Atlas uses Australia/Oceania. All this evidence shows that the choice not to have the term Oceania in the intro is in breach of equitably.Gpeilon (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed a balance intro which present the two terms and clearly indicates that the definition just varies accross countries in the World. This change is in agreement with the point of view of most of the contributors above, and I think I have given quite a bit of evidence about the fact that Oceania is well considered as one of the continent by a large part of the World. If Bosonic you still feel that we need a paper reference to add to the intro, I'd really appreciate if you could give your references from the Canadian Atlas or the Collins Atlas. Gpeilon (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oceania is also the option used on the Chinese Wikipedia suggesting that it is what Chinese use this definition instead of Australia. This certainly makes Oceania one of the the variant the most used in the World... As I said the previous intro, listing Australia as the natural option and discussion Oceania only marginally was in breach of equitably.Gpeilon (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes, yet again. As I previously noted in November, you have not provided sources to support the viewpoint of 'Anglo-Saxons' regarding the name of that continent. Nor have you garnered a consensus supporting your edits. It is acknowledged in this article, the talk page, and in related articles -- not to mention personally -- that the continent may be referred to as Oceania ... but, it arguably is already dealt with equitably. Case in point: we do not iterate in the lead that Eurasia is considered by some the name of a continent (particularly in the 'Soviet' states) comprising Asia and Europe, as the article expands on this. (This is also noted in both the National Geographic and Britannica references.) Or that 'America' is considered by some (esp. in Latin America) as one continent. In English, 7 continents are usually and basically considered -- as sourced -- and those are listed. Furthermore, even doing some basic Google counts reveals 9.8M instances of 'Australia' and 'continent', more than 4 times as many as with 'Oceania' -- so, to place it in the lead is giving it undue weight when other monikers (like Eurasia or America) may be more deserving. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bosonic you told us that you have paper reference on the subject from the Canadian Atlas and the Collins Atlas. I have also given extensive evidence on the use of Oceania in the World. Its use is clearly more widespread than Eurasia, but if you wanted to add a mention of Eurasia in the intro, I actually think it would be a good think. Continents' definitions are cultural, what the present intro is doing is giving a one sided definition which comes from a specific cultural view point. This is not equitable.

I have not suggested in the last change to replace Australia, but to add the mention of Oceania besides. I think you have to explain why this is not equitable. It is the Your Google count is interesting but certainly does not count for anything relative to the evidence I put forward (you did not look for Oceania and continent in French, German, Spanish, Chinese, etc.). As you have been the only one to be against a balanced presentation in the intro, I will ask for a third opinion on this matter. I think that in the light of the evidence you have in your own atlas and of the evidence I have put forward, your strict refusal to mention Oceania in the intro is violating equitably. If the problem for you is Anglo-saxon, then you could have change this specific point instead of reverting everything. I suggest a new compromise, please consider it with the evidence I have put forward. It is clear that for a large part of the World, Oceania is the continent they refer to. I have shown it for many countries in mainland Europe and China, and I just found references from Brasil and Argentina. I have given references outside Wikipedia including a French Encyclopedia, a German Atlas and US Atlas. I just found a reference from a well respected Spanish newspaper, El Pais. Once again you said yourself that you found it in respectable Atlas from Canada, so I fail to understand why you tell me that there is no reference.

Proposition:

Australia or Oceania (the definition of the area of this last continent varying across countries).

In addition to the present reference, I suggest to add several of the reference I have found. Your own reference are naturally welcome.Gpeilon (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposition, as Australia is a continent, but Oceania is not. It is a region, which is different to a continent.

I should add that reading the whole discussion above shows that numerous contributors have been surprised by the use of "Australia" given that it is not the convention in their countries. Overall, the evidence I have put forward and the contribution of the other contributors show that Oceania is the option in continental Europe, South America and China. It is also regularly mentioned in North America, Canada and the US (as the Atlas references show). It is on this basis that the current intro violates equitably. The previous proposition aims to have a neutral statement about this reality of the different continent definitions in the World. If you disagree with this proposition Bosonic, please let me know where I failed to credibly show that this definition is widely used in the World.Gpeilon (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, your proposition(s) is insufficient. It is contingent on YOU to garner a consensus to change the current article, and that does not include passing editorial commentary, not on me to defend it. You have not done so, nor have you provided references to support the specific changes you have proposed (e.g., regarding Anglo-Saxon reckonings, etc.). What's more, you have glazed over other comments above regarding the commonality of other terms that may be more prevalent than Oceania (e.g., Eurasia, America). In essence, major references provided -- which were pointed out to you in November and one of which, in your recent misquotation, you used to justify your changes -- have clearly noted the 7 usual continents as named in English (and, different wikis cannot be used to dissuade), and alternate names/reckonings are equitably dealt with further down. To do otherwise as you propose, as would be the addition of other variants noted above, would place undue weight on relatively minor terms/concepts. It would also unfocus the lead and render it less useful, like what is what? My total reversion of your nonconsensual edits is based on the above, and I see little reason to change. If you want to change the lead as proposed, provide specific references that explicitly support said changes. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand it is your opinion Bosonic. I am surprised you dismiss all the evidence I have put forward and still refer to the "anglo-saxon" to dismiss my last change while I have dropped this reference in the last edit I suggest purposely, to answer your concerns. I will ask for a third party opinion because I am a bit at a lost with your argument. You ask me for references whilst you say it is said in your own Atlas.Gpeilon (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand: I do not dismiss the evidence as such, but it must be put into perspective and balanced with other quite substantial evidence, per NPOV policy. Two major references in the lead very clearly support the current content, i.e., not noting Oceania. In actuality, you have provided little hard supporting evidence, specifically regarding your specific edits (e.g., Anglo-Saxon reckonings). Dropping that doesn't end my concerns about your desired placing of undue weight on relatively uncommon terms, particularly to the potential exclusion of others, or perhaps trying to prove a point. Find a reference that says, "the 7 continents are x,y,and Australia or Oceania" and you may get more support. Until then, little more can be advanced on this front. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Continent and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: It appears to me that this dispute is only over the question of whether Oceania should be mentioned in the lede of the article. I believe the case has been fully made that Oceania is often used in place of Australia. My opinion is that Oceania ought to appear in the lede here to avoid confusion. In an article about automobiles which lists the parts of an auto in the lede, for example, I would for the same reason support the inclusion of "hood or bonnet" and "trunk or boot." What doesn't belong in the lede, however, is any explanation of why both terms are there, especially if it is going to take more than one or two words. That's already explained adequately in the body of the article and shouldn't take up space in the lede. The inclusion of the term in the lede, with a footnote tag or two sourcing it, does not in my opinion violate WP:UNDUE but taking up space to explain it could.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplement to Third Opinion: I'm adding this before anyone else responds (or if there's an edit conflict before I can get this in, without reading the other response first). I do recognize that including Oceania suggests that Eurasia and Australasia ought to also be included, but I don't think so. I think that Oceania or Australasia needs to be included to not only recognize the variation in terms, but to also help avoid the impression that the island of Australia is, by itself alone, a continent. If it is felt that the inclusion of Oceania compels the inclusion of those two terms, then I'd favor a construction which gives "Eurasia (or Europe and Asia) ... Austrailia/Oceania/Australasia," but I really think that just including Oceania is enough. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (Typo corrected. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the opinion, which is unconvincing. I find curious your contention to include Oceania, yet not Eurasia or America ... terms which are rather more prevalent. (Two of the sources in the lead at least mention the former.) So, the inclusion of one term is tied to inclusion of others. Requests for added sources to support equitable inclusion of Oceania in the lead, based on edits made to date, have not been forthcoming, particularly in light of sources that may indicate otherwise. Yet, adding all of the terms would rather muddy the lead -- after all, the smallest continental landmass is Australia (which itself can comprise the continent without nearby islands) not necessarily Oceania (which sometimes excludes Australia). So, the inclusion of this term may instead promote confusion, something which the the rest of the article (in its encyclopedic treatment of topic matter) expands on. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Transporter's opinion is based partly on a misconception, because he/she says we should "avoid the impression that the island of Australia is, by itself alone, a continent". That is exactly how it is usually considered where I live (with Tasmania and sometimes New Guinea included, if people think of them). So it's difficult for me to fully accept an opinion that discounts this possibility. That said, I am not opposed to mentioning variations in usage (America vs N. and S. America, Australia vs Oceania, perhaps Eurasia) in the lead, which I think is currently far too short for an article of this size. -- Avenue (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps: glance at the Australia article/history for issues regarding it being the 'island continent' and the weight of that assessment. Anyhow, I don't think anything is being discounted; in fact, this is reflected in the very language of the lead: "[Continents] are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, with seven regions commonly regarded as continents..." And, my sources notwithstanding, I have yet to see another major reputable one that supports looser, muddier (IMO) wording noting Oceania or other entities. (Curiously, the Oxford dictionary I have refers to "North and South America".) And if they do, I wonder if a distinction is being made between continents and regions (for socioeconomic groupings and such). This is part of the problem. Nonetheless, I think the lead is an appropriately concise summary, with details below and aside. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to Transporter's opinion, which may have discounted a fairly mainstream view of Australia as an island continent. Sorry if I was unclear. I agree that our article doesn't discount this. Regarding sources, Lewis and Wigen discuss the history of the term Oceania briefly in their 1997 book The Myth of Continents, going back to Conrad Malte-Brun's use of it in 1827. I think it's interesting that it originally included Indonesia and the Philippines (see e.g. this 1842 map), and often did until after the second World War. They refer to one author (Bartholomew) explicitly defining Oceania as a continent in 1873. But you're probably looking for a recent source; I didn't find anything very authoritative in a quick search, but will look again later. -- Avenue (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Interesting -- similarly, per our article (with source), the definition of Oceania can include all islands in the Pacific, including Japan and the Aleutians. The ambiguous nature of the term for this region, to me, is added reason why we needn't note this in the lead about continents. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with this notion of pretending that Oceania is a continent, when it is, in fact, a region.

Actually, Australia is a continent but Oceania and Australiasia are not continents. They are "regions". Ninety per cent of the debate on this page stems from this basic mistake regarding definitions. In any case, you still need to amend the map so that New Zealand and the Pacific Islands are a neutral colour (those countries are not part of the continental model). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This. Australia was always taught to be the only country that is also a continent. This means PNG, NZ, and all the islands of the Oceanic/Australasian REGION are not to be included, when the continent of Australia was always taught to be and only be the country, Australia.

It's nonsense to suggest that the National Geographic reference can stand, because there are other, more reliable and earlier sources conflicting with that. The definition you discussed with the Latin derivation labels a continent as a large portion of land; groups of islands do not fit that definition. It is incorrect to say that Pacific Islands etc must be part of a continent - they are scattered islands, so are obviously not part of a "large land mass". Islands close to the mainland have traditionally been considered to be close enough that they still count as part of that nearby continent. Pacific Islands do not fit that pattern. 'Oceania' might be a useful name for you (even though NZ is the only other country in that region that has any sort of similarity with Australia), but it just isn't a 'continent'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen214 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As a professor in geography, allow me to state that I find this debate most amusing. It appears to stem wholly from a semantic mistake - you are all (or at least, most of you) assuming that the terms Oceania and Australasia are used to refer to a continent. They are not - Oceania and Australasia are REGIONS. A REGION is not synonymous with a CONTINENT. Australia is a continent. It includes the Australian mainland, Papua New Guinea/Iryan Jaya and surrounding islands. It does NOT include New Zealand and the majority of the Pacific islands (New Zealand and most of the Pacific islands are not part of the seven continents model and the poster way up the top of this page who says they should be a neutral gray on the graphic is correct). New Zealand and the Pacific islands ARE part of Australasia/Oceania, but Australasia/Oceania is NOT a continent, but rather a region. You certainly must not say anything in the article that suggests that Australasia/Oceania are continents. I hope this helps clarify things for you all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.80.100 (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2011 (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)

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))

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)