Talk:Macaronesia

Map

Somebody add a map please Nergaal 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

"The name comes from the Greek for "blessed islands"... or maybe not. Maybe Macaronesia is related to Macaronic verse, connoting a heterogeneous mixture of islands with no cohesive category or unified origin. --Wetman 09:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

good joke there, thanks it did not end up in the article. --87.168.67.213 10:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's a joke, the article might briefly explain the designation Macaronesia, so easily confused with Macronesia. --Wetman 19:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's "not to be confused," with Macronesia, then why does Macronesia refer only to here? (And, for that matter, it's a self-referential link.) If Macronesia is a misspelling of Macaronesia, then the article should simply say so in the first sentence, rather than leading one to think Macronesia is something different. --98.215.48.213 (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, & I have altered it accordingly. --Rothorpe (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

i don't speak greek, but all sorts of googling supports the idea that mακάρων means BLESSED as wetman said 16 yrs ago, not "unfortunate". who came up with that?! 2601:19C:527F:A660:FDE2:56F7:2F7C:4C96 (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Part of Europe?

Hello @JJ 25: and @Peter coxhead:. I have created this space for you two so you can fight it out here. This way you have plenty of space to present arguments for your positions and other editors might also have a chance to engage in this discussion. So please go ahead. RhinoMind (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see the point of the Europe portal here, but I don't care much about it either way. What I think is important is to be clear that: (a) Macaronesia is not entirely within Europe politically, although most of it is; (b) Macaronesia is treated as entirely within Africa biogeographically by the many sources that use the WGSRPD to categorize the distribution of organisms. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, from what you write and your recent edits, I think it is fair to say that you do care quite a bit.

As you also points out, most of the territory is part of Europe politically speaking, so at least this part of the discussion should be fairly easy to settle.

Regarding the biology, I encourage you to read more about the laurisilva forests in Macaronesia. They are distant remnants of ancient laurisilva forests around the Mediterranean region, including the European parts. It is in a very distant past, and laurisilva forests are long extinct in the Mediterranean region, but at least this serves to illustrate the biological link to Europe.

I do not have a final answer about whether Macaronesia should be in the Europe portal or not, but several facts points towards that. RhinoMind (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I really don't care about the portal (I'm unenthusiastic about all portals). It's not for us to discuss why the WGSRPD puts Macaronesia into Africa, merely to note, with the appropriate reference, that it does, and hence so do the many sources that use it. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is ok to turn off your brain and start editing WP like a zombie. No matter what anyone says. Are you from the WGSRPD? No? Then why follow them blindly? They might very well be wrong. And I think they are on this issue. I have even presented arguments, a rare treat in our day and age, where everything from security and economy to international politics is settled by emotions alone. RhinoMind (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@RhinoMind: I think you need to read WP:No original research, among other key Wikipedia policies. To quote from WP:5P: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." Editors' opinions on the content of the WGSRPD are utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia, whose purpose is present to readers knowledge from reliable sources, preferably secondary or tertiary ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What I presented have nothing to do with a personal preference or any of the things you list. It is quite clear for everyone to see. RhinoMind (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

After reading the thread that led to this - and I'm not normally a Wikipedia-head (as you can see by deliberately spelling it out) - I'd just like to call out this point (about Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong") - and more importantly the underlying POINT, HARD. Which is: this is NOT about YOU. ESPECIALLY it is not about YOU WINNING.

Reading Talk pages about an actual Article often feels like the old quote about academic fights being so vicious because the stakes are so small, and this is a perfect case of that: "is Macaronesia part of Africa because of the organisms/biome? or is it about the polity/s?" "oh let me tell you about distant remnants of laurasilva forests" SERIOUSLY? Do you WP folks sometimes take a step back, look at your squabbles, and think - wait: it's almost midnight, I need some sleep, and what the HELL am I arguing about? Because this is omphaloskepticism of the highest order. Get over your damn self, and need to "win" - figure out a compromise solution with the anonymous faceless WP'er you've gone to war with, and get it DONE. (Seriously, how important is this in either (a) your life or (b) anyone else in the world's life, to fight like this over? Offer a SOLUTION/COMPROMISE - and be done with it.) A Doon (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you perhaps point to where WGSRPD explains how Macaronesia groups with the African continent? I can't see it anywhere. RhinoMind (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@RhinoMind: it's in several different places. Perhaps the easiest to see quickly is the map on p. 105, plus the key to this map on p. 104. It's discussed on p. xii. The table on p. 19 shows Macaronesia under Africa. The table on p. 37 shows all the sub-areas of Africa, including Macaronesia. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Ah, yes, my fault. I see it now. Thanks. But why have WGSRPD categorized it in the Africa category? And what does it mean, really? Do you happen to know? It could just be a convenient category for them to work with for undisclosed reasons that have nothing to do with real world biology and ecology. They explain nothing. With your insistence, perhaps you could explain it? RhinoMind (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@RhinoMind: as far as I understand it, the grouping is because of shared native species of plant, other than those that are widely distributed. Species that come to my mind include Euphorbia regis-jubae, Dracaena draco, Tetraena fontanesii. Then there are genera like Nanorrhinum, Retama, etc. whose species mostly stretch across from Macaronesia through North Africa. However, the key point is that there's widespresd use of the WGSRPD system, so it obviously has the support of botanists. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way there would be no problem in grouping Macaronesia in several portals, Africa and Europe included. RhinoMind (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Well most of the Azores are inside the European continental plate, only Flores and Corvo are inside the North American plate.

However all the Azores are closer geographically to Europe than anything else (including Corvo and Flores). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Macaronesia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Macaronesia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Macaronesia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Spelling of Greek name

In §Etymology:

The name Macaronesia is derived from the [Ancient] Greek words meaning "islands of the fortunate" (μακάρων νησοι or μακάρων νήσοι, makárōn nēsoi).

In the first spelling, is νησοι (underlined) correct? I am unaware of any option of writing Ancient Greek words of more than one syllable without accent marks, and to the best of my recollection I have never seen such spelling, except possibly in function words – never in content words. --Thnidu (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, they are the same except the first lacks the accent. I've removed it. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Short description

The Azores are nowhere near Africa, they are closer to Portugal, have their own tectonic plate, and some islands are on it, while others are actually on the North American tectonic plate. Why is someone insisting on describing them as exclusively off the coast of Africa? please speak here. Megustalastrufas (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I also restored the lead to the long-standing version until we get any rationale/establish a consensus. Archives908 (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Macronesia spelling

Its always been Macronesia, to contrast with the pacific Micronesia. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Read Macaronesia § Etymology. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)