Talk:Italian Peninsula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Miscellaneous discussions[edit]

User from, please understand that you sometimes just can't stuff everything into nice little regional boxes and give them nice little nonsensical titles. It just doesn't make sense to state that islands are part of a peninsula. --Shallot 23:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Shouln't this be titled like the other "X Peninsula", see Category:Peninsulas --Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)



What happened to having maps in the encyclopedia? Certainly enough other graphics on these pages.

Missing something[edit]

Are not the canton of Ticino (Switzerland) and the are of Nice (France) part of the Italian peninsula (geographically talking!) ??

  • Geographically yes, and Monaco-Montecarlo also. Moreover, in the past these regions were part of Italy (Ticino was in Milan Duchy, and Nice, with Savoy, was in Sardinia and Piedmont Kingdom), while Monaco was an Italian city-State (the actual royal family, the Grimaldi, has Genoese origin). Is also part of Italian geographical region Istrian peninsula, now divided by Slovenia and Croatia.

What is the northern boundary of the ‘peninsula’?[edit]

At the moment we say that the peninsula is bounded to the north by the Alps. No doubt that boundary is what Metternich had in mind when notoriously defining Italy as a geographical expression. But according to the Wikipedia definition of a peninsula, and looking at the satellite picture, I would be tempted to place the boundary of the Italian Peninsula (as opposed to mainland Italy) a good deal further south. The Alps and the greater part of the Pianura padana (defined as the drainage basin of the Po, which indeed includes Ticino) would be excluded. Any thoughts? (I ought to add that I was hopeless at geography at school.) Ian Spackman 20:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Technically, in the definition of "peninsula" would not be comprise the Alps and the Pianura Padana, because they constitutes the "continental" part of Italy; but when we talk about "Italian peninula" we generally mean the Italian geographical region, so including northern Italy. If we would draw an imaginary border line between the peninsula and the continental sector we may link the cities of Genoa and Venice; this would still include in the concept of peninsula also the southern sector of Pianura Padana, that for natural, geographical, climate, cultural and historical reason has to be comprise as integrating part of Pianura Padana, rather than the peninsula. > Anyway is it since the Romans that the geographical concept of Italy (and of Stivale) appoints "the whole territory south of the Alps", and the Pianura Padana is more linked to the rest of the Country than Europe for the Alps. So it is for these reasons that the concept of Italian peninsula could not be separate from the continental sector.

Hi this site... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "it is since the Romans that the geographical concept of Italy (and of Stivale) appoints the whole territory south of the Alps" is historically wrong: the Romans called "Italia" only the central/southern part and "Gallia Cisalpina" the Po Valley. (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. Only in early times Romans called Italy the peninsula. In the Regions of Italy of Augustus Liguria was the IX region, Aemilia the VIII region, Transpadana the XI region and Venetia and Histria the X region.
Mr. Bossi, leader of Lega, would be happy to know to have a number of converts abroad! --Deguef (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Population of peninsular Italy[edit]

In the table in the article the population is listed with a number of inhabitants less than half of Italy's total population, which seems to be far too low a number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsca (talkcontribs) 23:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Why? Subtracting the north and the islands, I think that it is ok. Alex2006 (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)