Talk:Australia (continent)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag Australia (continent) is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Australia To-do:

Contents

[edit] Merge with Geography of Australia or Australia-New Guinea

I propose that this article be merged into Geography of Australia. I note that the distinction between the geography of the Commonwealth of Australia and the continent has been discussed there. Before tagging - any views? Is this likely to develop into a significqantly distinctive article, or should the other article be expanded to cover New Guinea, Lord Howe, .... --A Y Arktos 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --cj | talk 08:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with a merger as well. I can't see this article develop in any way. Anything that can be added regarding the continent can be put in the main Australia article or, as proposed, under Geography of Australia.--Kalsermar 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
A world map showing Australia
Enlarge
A world map showing Australia
Perhaps it would be better merged with Australia-New Guinea. It is clear that the two articles are about the same thing the only problem is whether to merge Australia (continent) into Australia-New Guinea or the other way around. I think, perhaps, it would be best to merge them both to Australia (continent) as I haven't heard or read the other term outside Wikipedia. I think I'll do this. If, after all, Australian-New Guinea is the better place, then it won't be hard to move it back there. Something would have to be done about the map, though, because inspite of the article Australia (continent)'s insistance that to exclude New Guinea is a mistake the map does just this. Jimp 25Jan06
Hmmm. I'd support merging Australia-New Guinea into Australia (continent), since authoritative references to the former may not be forthcoming or in abundance and most sources – including dictionaries – will hark of the simpler term to describe the continent (where the simpler term is also abound). I don't think appropriate elements should merely be dumped into Geography of Australia (and shouldn't be merged with it), since there may be ambiguity there about whether the article does (or should) deal with the country alone or continent. To compare: crack is a form of cocaine, but not vice versa. This move/merge to the current locale would also be inline with the common naming convention and the practice of naming articles that are ambiguous; see Georgia, etc. (Also note that there are more Google hits for Sahul than "Australia-New Guinea" and scant few for Meganesia.)
And I'll fix/update the maps, which I didn't have a chance to properly update earlier. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've merged the former Australia-New Guinea here as discussed. I agree that this article should not be merged with Geography of Australia nor have appropriate elements dumped into it. As discussed on that article's talk page it seems that the article is, should be and always had been intended to be about the geography of the Commonwealth of Australia. It would also seem that the main reason that a merge with Geography of Australia was suggested in the first place was that it appeared unlikely that Australia (continent) would "develop into a significqantly distinctive article,". Well, I think that by merging Australia-New Guinea here it has so developed. Jimp 07:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Works for me! When the geography article is more refined (or even before), it might also be wise to add a hatnote atop the that article to promote clarity. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I've updated the map (and have made appropriate article edits) to include New Guinea and intervening islands; since the continental shelf boundary is rather undefined (and based on some online searching), I colourised Australia (including Tasmania and Torres Strait Islands), and New Guinea (including the eastern portion of Indonesia (Aru/Maluku Islands)) and mainland provinces of Papua New Guinea).
I trust this is sufficient; if any changes are required or if there are any questions, let me know. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map

The map shows the nation of Oz, not Sahul. kwami 22:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continental Drift

Is the part that says Australia and New Guinea both sit on top of a single tectonic plate, the Indo-Australian Plate, and are connected by a shallow continental shelf. All were joined onto Antarctica as part of the southern supercontinent Gondwana until the plate began to drift north about 96 million years ago (mya) relevant? I mean, Continental Drift is only a theory, there is no hard proof that this is how the earth began...

"... only a theory ..." a favourite catch phrase of Young-Earth Creationists. It's not only a theory: it's a scientific theory. There's a lot of hard evidence but, no, no deductive proof: that's the nature of science. It is very relevant. Jimp 05:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] like the other continents its geographic area is defined by its continental shelf

Since when does Europe have its own continental plate? Since when does Asia sit on only one continental plate? This is not how continents are defined at all. Suggest this be re-worded... if there are no objections I will do it. If I'm wrong then the Continent article needs a major overhaul. Factoid Killer 20:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked, I think, the content to better describe the region; let me know whatyathink. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is developing really well and now makes excellent sense as to why the article on the continent is separate from Geography of Australia.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree there's is nothing of geological in the definitionof continents. After the name itself ("land together") it's only a conjecture about the shape of the lands. For example, Asia and India are on different c. shelves. 145.94.13.99 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia only or Aust + New Guinea

In Australia we are taught that the continent of Australia is only our country and that New Guinea and other country :P are part of Asia. This is what the Australian education system says. It may be wrong though, it probably could be a bit biased but could someone please tell me what is right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rkeys (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no definite meaning of the terms Australia (when used to describe a continent), Australasia and Oceania - they can mean different things to different people. Check out the articles I have linked for more information. -- Chuq 06:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The continent of australia is the mainland and tasmania, the surrounding islands are part of oceania, please get this right, for once let wikipedia be accurate. - 59.167.38.13 23:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your source - others disagree with you--Arktos talk 23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you cite your sources saying it is. It is on those who wish to add information to provide proof, not on those who take it away. Give a Georgraphic reference book, or a journal article that proves New Guinea is classed as part of the Australian continent. Because the funny thing is, i cant find a single article anywhere saying that it is. - 59.167.38.13 23:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a site on Oceania, you will see Papua is listed as being an island in oceania, look in the australia section, no mention of anyhting beyond Australia, Tasmania and the torres strait. [1] [2] [3] - 59.167.38.13 23:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The cite http://ask.yahoo.com/20040409.html does not meet our guidelines for a reliable source - see WP:RS I don't think http://www.countriesquest.com/oceania/australia.htm is a reliable source for this geographical purpose either. Just because it is on the web ... Who is this dot com site? The Foreign Affairs web site could be used to say "some call it" the Island Continent - but note it is Government PR, not a geographical source. Foreign Affairs is by definition concerned with politics and diplomacy. I have reverted your edits. Please come up with a source that has some geographical authority. I have reinstated the New Guinea ref but I have requested a citation.--Arktos talk 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The argument would seem to be about the Sahul Shelf on which there is a wikipedia article. These two Indonesian reference about the shelf would appear to support the contention that the shelf is part of the continent.[4][5] --Arktos talk 23:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been requested to CITE your Papua New Guinea ref as well, and have failed to do so, this is a double edged sword and unless you're a hypocrite, you will leave that information out until you provide a source of equal geographic standing as the one you demand of me. - 59.167.38.13 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

These refs have the Sahul Shelf on the Australasian continent. The shelf includes New Guinea. Note please comment on content not editors as per WP:NPA and WP:Civil--Arktos talk 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
With this edit 59.167.38.13 (talk • contribs), reintroduced sources that had already been deprecated, spelling errors and removed info that was covered by the source I offered - please don't revert to reintroduce such errors again please. My reversion was legitimate and had been discussed on this page addressing concerns and pointing out why the edit was wrong (though I didn't point out the poor spelling), the anon's just served to introduce errors, even spelling errors! He also couldn't be bothered to read the cites offered or else he would have learnt a little more about the Sahul Shelf, New Guinea and Australia. If he wants Wikipedia to be accurate, he might have to get beyond his own prejudice and do some research or else read the offerings of sources by others.--Arktos talk 01:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A single mistake in one word does not constitute "poor spelling", merely a typo. And if you had bothered to check the timecodes, you would find that the reversion was done before your new comments on the talk page. Now, heres another reference for you: [6] [7] [8] - 59.167.38.13 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Timestamps: reversion at 9:36 followed three minutes after my provision of cites That you hadn't read the cites in the 3 minutes, ie checked the talk page for a response before reversion, was the problem.
References:
  1. the Brittanica article is not geographic but political, this article is not talking about the Commonwealth of Australia - that they use different money in New Guinea is not germane to whether it is part of the Australian continent or not (there is another article on the Commonwelath on the Wikipedia!)
  2. www.australiaonthemap.org.au is a history article - probably pitched at junior primary audience judging by the language. It has no references. Not a reliable source for an article about the continent when the web site's focus is to commemorate 400 years of mapping - no mention of plate tectonics here.
  3. www6.miami.edu is a pitch to "Study abroad in Australia" while it might be a great ad for the "wonderful opportunity to study in an English speaking country that is different from the U.S. in so many ways." and "This beautiful hillside campus overlooks the St. Vincent Gulf and is located 10 km from the center of Adelaide." - it is not in any way a reliable source for this article (or probably any other).
  4. The references I referred to above were
    1. An indonesian government sourced reference discussing fauna [9] which discussed the shelves and faunal lines with the specific assertion ... the islands of Java, Sumatra, Kalimantan and Bali on the Sunda Shelf were joined together with one another and with the Asian mainland, but Papua, Aru and the Australian continent of the Sahul Shelf were separated. This early geographical separation explains why the tropical animal species of Java, Sumatra and Kalimantan do not exist in Papua. For the same reason, the kangaroo of Papua is missing in the other region. (Papua does refer to New Guinea by the way).
    2. A web page on Indonesia by an Indonesian academic [10]. It states The archipelago is on a crossroads between two oceans, the Pacific and the Indian ocean, and bridges two continents, Asia and Australia. With reference to fauna: Sumatra, Kalimantan and Ball on the Sunda Shelf were joined together with one another and with the Asian mainland, but Irian Jaya, Aru and the Australian continent of the Sahul Shelf were separated. This early geographical separation explains why the tropical animal species of Java, Sumatra and Kalimantan do not exist in Irian Jaya. For the same reason, the kangaroo of Irian Jaya is missing in the other region. and The other two faunal lines are the Weber Line. which passes the sea between Maluku and Sulawesi, and the Lydekker Line, which starts at the Sahul Shelf and skirts the western border of Irian Jaya and the Australian continent.
    3. I have also provided a reference in the article to a page produced by the Australian Institute of Marine Science on the geomorphology and paleogeography of the Timor sea - directly relevant to the topic and from an authorative source. [11]
  5. Please cease wasting people's time with chasing and reviewing references that are not from authorative sources and relevant to the topic.
Reverting to reintroduce a spelling mistake or typo magnifies the issue.--Arktos talk 12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would seriously question the Indonesia references for the current time, their government has a biased opinion of Australia at the moment, and regardless of what the topic is, the information cannot be considered particularly accurate. Furthermore, if you refused to accept the Australian government links that i provided, then the Indonesian ones should not be accepted either. - 59.167.38.13 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Dept of Foreign Affairs link you provided was not talking continents in the geological sense. It is talking Commowealth of Australia. The Indonesian Government is talking faunal distinctions and the Sahul Shelf. It contradicts nothing in the Australian Government's Australian Institute of Marine Science site. Similarly the Indonesian academic's site does not contradict but augments the AIMS site. The DFAT site you gave [12] does not deal with the detail of whether or not the Sahul shelf (which incorproates New Guinea) is or is not part of the continent - ie it does not contradict the wikipedia article or clarify as it lacks the necessary detail. It refers to the Australian continent is part of the Indian–Australian tectonic plate but does not say what is or is not included. This page [13] includes a map prepared by Geoscience Australia which makes the distinction between claimed political boundaries and the continental shelf. You will see that New Guinea is art of the Australian continental shelf. Can you find a scientific site that disagrees the Sahul shelf is part of the Australian continent? Not even the Indonesian governemnt disagrees? Your issue with Indonesian sources seems very POV and not warranted. --Arktos talk 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a POV, it is a simple fact, as of this moment, Indo-Australian relations are very strained due to drug traffiking and smuggling problems that what either side says about the other should not be taken into consideration. Now, you keep finding "excuses" to counter the claim that Australia is an island-continent, despite the fact that you apparently haven't done any research into the subject. Google returned "18,900" results to "island continent +geography" when you punch it in and i took 6 articles that show references to it. Despite all else, you have to accept the fact that island-continent is a commonly used alternate name for Australia, even if you don't approve of it as a continental definition. But you have made it clear that you don't like any changes to your page, so i'm not going to try anymore. -59.167.38.13 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] continental shelf reference

From Page 12 of Johnson, David Peter (2004), The Geology of Australia, Port Melbourne, Victoria: Cambridge University Press:

"Geologically the continent extends to the edge of the continental shelf.... Note the extensive continental shelves that connect the Australian mainland to Papua New Guinea in the north and to Tasmania in the south."

I guess that settles that then. Snottygobble 03:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] island continent

I agree with Arktos that just because we sometimes call it "the island continent" doesn't actually make it so. Nevertheless, the fact that we sometimes call it "the island continent" is a notable cultural reference to the subject of the article. I suggest the creation of a "Cultural references" section, to include text something like:

As Australia the country is largely comprised of a single island, and comprises most of Australia the continent, it is sometimes informally referred to as "the island continent", especially for marketing purposes. [14]

Snottygobble 02:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia only or Aust + New Guinea - again

Moved here from Ref desk:misc

This article says that the continent Australia has more than one country in it, such as papua new guinea and the islands around it, THIS IS NOT TRUE. AUSTRALIA IS ITS OWN CONTINENT. i was going to edit this but i desided not to since the map had papua new ginea coloured in. Can someone please change this as this article is VERY VERY wrong.

read
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Continents-Critique-Metageography/dp/0520207432/sr=8-1/qid=1157962394/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7510196-0752049?ie=UTF8&s=books
and then come back and make your changes. Jasbutal 08:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That was selling something, it didnt tell me anything, anyway Papua New Guinea is apart of asia. Some Proof is it use to be apart of indonesia, AND INDONESIA IS ASIA!! ITS ASIA!!!! I live in Australia and i know that WE are our own country and continent!

ur asian, dude, sorry! im asian though, wikipedia says so, so you better just admit it. Jasbutal 08:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm... AUSTRALIA IS A CONTINENT, SO HOW COULD AUSTRALIA BE APART OF ASIA. !!!!!!! Listen i know more about my country than u do! Also, go type in Asia, does it say AUstralia is apart of it.... NO, dont tell me stuff if u dont even know it! Also if ur asian then u should know Australia isnt apart of your continent

look, don't get mad at me! u should be mad at wikipedia. But you proved it yourself:
1. papua new guinea is part of Asia.
2. papua new guinea is part of Australia
3. Therefore, Australia is part of Asia!!!
logic doesn't lie. sorry, man, I really feel bad for you and your country. I admit, I never knew Australia was part of Asia until now either. Man am I glad I'm not australian...Jasbutal 08:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Continents can not be a part of other continents, and u said u were glad u were not australian, well im glad im not ASIAN LIKE YOU!

The proper place to discuss this is on the article discussion page, but see also the discussion of this on the Australasia discussion page. And please don't shout. It will detract from your argument (if you have one), not reinforce it. And it's best to sign your posts if you want to be taken seriously.--Shantavira 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Although Australia may be considered a continent by itself,more often it is included as part of Oceania-this also includes New Zealand,Fiji,Samoa,Tonga and various other Pacific islands. It is as part of Oceania that Australia competes in varying sporting events. Despite Jasbutal's assurance that 'Wikipedia says so' Australia is not considered as part of Asia and Australians are not regarded as being Asians. Papua New Guinea is an independent country and not a part of Australia.It is part of the continent of Asia as are countries such as Indonesia,East Timor,Singapore,Brunei and Malaysia within that area. Lemon martini 17:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

ah, "It is part of the continent of Asia" I love your confidence in the non-arbitrariness of continent distribution. Truly, the Lord created the 7 continents like he did the 7 planets, the seven leaves on the new oak branch and the 7 major constellations. Jasbutal 18:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok check out the following articles, Continent for the different arrangments of continents, ranging from 3 to 7, Big bang theory and evolution for the lord thingy, solar system for the planets comment, Oak for a picture of various oak branches with more than 7 leaves, List of constellations for the many constellations. Hmm, maybe if we have an article on thinking before speaking aswell somewhere... Philc TECI 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
apparently you missed my first post. I think you should read sarcasm and then STFU Jasbutal 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please move this discussion to the appropriate page. THanks.--Light current 23:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC) done it

[edit] Once again

As I said above:

From Page 12 of Johnson, David Peter (2004), The Geology of Australia, Port Melbourne, Victoria: Cambridge University Press:
"Geologically the continent extends to the edge of the continental shelf.... Note the extensive continental shelves that connect the Australian mainland to Papua New Guinea in the north and to Tasmania in the south."
I guess that settles that then. Snottygobble 03:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an unambiguous statement from an authoritative academic source. You can yell and scream all you like. Unless you can provide an equally authoritative source that disagrees, this article will continue to treat Papua New Guinea as part of the Australian continent. Snottygobble 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


OK, if that's what the consensus is, fair enough. But Wikipedia has to be consistent about this, and that's not the case at present. Our article on Australia has the following statements:

  • Australia ... is a country in the Southern Hemisphere comprising the world's smallest continent and a number of islands in the Southern, Indian, and Pacific Oceans.
    • This assumes that the continent does not extend beyond the mainland of the Commonwealth of Australia.
  • The continent of Australia has been inhabited for more than 42,000 years by Indigenous Australians.
    • There's no mention of inhabitation by native New Guineans.
  • After sporadic visits by fishermen from the north and by European explorers and merchants starting in the seventeenth century, the eastern half of the continent was claimed by the British in 1770 and officially settled through penal transportation as the colony of New South Wales on 26 January 1788.
    • That British claim did not include any part of New Guinea as far as I know.
  • The first undisputed recorded European sighting of the Australian continent was made by the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, who sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula in 1606.
    • But from New Guinea, it's clear there was European visitation to New Guinea dating back to 1526.

So, if the above view is to prevail, there's quite a lot to be corrected in our Australia article. JackofOz 13:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications in the Australia article made with ref to mainland--Golden Wattle talk 02:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Australia article does not need to be corrected. This one needs to be. DXRAW 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No the political entity does not equal the continent. We do need to make corrections to the Australia article as highlighted by User:JackofOz--Golden Wattle talk 23:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but first you must find out what is correct as every single student in Australia is taught that Australia is a continent of its own. DXRAW 23:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

We have an authorative reference as to why New Guinea is included (see above). See the article on Lie-to-children which explains the concept of pedagogic simplification - ie Such statements are not usually intended as deceptions, and may, in fact, be true to a first approximation or within certain contexts. For example Newtonian mechanics, by modern standards, is factually incorrect (as it fails to take into account relativity or quantum mechanics) but it is still a valuable and useful model in many situations. - an approximation is that the country Australia = the continent - suitable for schoolchildren, not for an encyclopaedia - not unless you can find an authorative, not simplified, reference to support the view, this article should probably make reference to the popular notion and to Pedagogic simplification, but as per user JacOfOz, the Australia article should be made correct and consistent with the view referenced here.--Golden Wattle talk 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The idea that a continent includes all the islands on the continental shelf is new to me, but makes sense. Given my biological background, I'm very aware of the Wallace Line through Indonesia, which marks the divide between Asian and Australian fauna. By implication, the Australian continent extends all the way to Lombok, just across the water from Bali. However this is a difficult concept for many to come to terms with, although I notice the article does address the issue. I think some headings would help emphasise the point, though. --Michael Johnson 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australasia

What does it mean?--Light current 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a geopolitical term - see Australasia. Snottygobble 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Have you read the article on Australasia?--Golden Wattle talk 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I think this picture is inaccurate.Indonesia and PNG may be part of Australasia,but Australia is it's own country.Serenacw 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Australia the continent, not Australia the country, and not Australasia the geopolitical region. PNG is part of the Australian continent. Snottygobble 01:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So what do we call the big island?

As Australia the continent includes all the islands, what do we call the big island? Presumably it is also called Australia, and thus the source of much of the confusion above? --Michael Johnson 03:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably also known as Australia. But it is easily clarified by referring to it as "mainland Australia" or just "the mainland". Snottygobble 03:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
What's confusing is the difference between Australasia, Australia (continent) and Oceania. Perhaps address this controversy somewhere? 83.134.144.162 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is confusing or controversial.
The lead of the article Australasia states it is a term variably used to describe a region of Oceania – namely Australia, New Zealand, and neighbouring islands in the Pacific Ocean.
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.
This continent article states Australia (also called Australia-New Guinea, Australinea, Sahul, or Meganesia) is a continent made up of the Australian mainland, Tasmania, New Guinea, and intervening islands. These landmasses are separated by the Torres Strait, which runs between Australia and New Guinea, and the Bass Strait between mainland Australia and Tasmania. From biological and geological points of view, however, they form a single unit.
I don't quite see what clarification is being sought or needs to be added.--Golden Wattle talk 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting question. It used to be called New Holland - has this term fallen completely into disuse? This must be the only significant piece of land in the world that does not have a proper name. Nurg 05:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, very interesting. In Australia, the right to gazette official geographic place names resides with the individual states. So far no state has had the gumption to gazette the place name "Australia" in reference to anything: not the continent, not the country, not the mainland. The Gazetteer of Australia does list a geographic place of type "CONT" (continent) named "Australia", but that is an unofficial record.[15] "New Holland" had fallen into disuse by the 1830s, and is now archaic. I believe you're right that "mainland Australia" doesn't really have a name. Hesperian 05:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Including eastern Indonesia

By the definition the continent should include all of the Indonesian islands to to the Wallace line, including of course East Timor. Anybody like to make the edit? --Michael Johnson 22:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have had a go but used eastern islands of the Malay Archipelago, including Timor, to the Wallace Line, rather than the political Indonesia and East Timor because we are trying to talk about geography rather than countries and politics. Similarly the reference to New Guinea in the lead is to the island rather than Papua and Irian Jaya.--Golden Wattle talk 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not quite accurate and, thus, I've made appropriate edits. Continents are primarily delineated by continental shelves; as such, Wallacea should not be used to define the continent. As well, it is probably better that "intervening islands" remains as is (i.e., somewhat vague): for example, numerous authoritative sources place Timor (for a variety of reasons) in Asia, not Australia or Oceania. Cogito ergo sumo 02:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Indo-Australian Plate?

Shouldn't this article be merged with Indo-Australian Plate, preferably at that name.--Peta 23:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I would have no objection to such a merger--Golden Wattle talk 23:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Each plate seems to have its own article - and it probably makes sense that they are distinct from the "continent" articles. Exactly what the contient of Australia includes needs to be better defined (but the same can be said for all the continet articles).--Peta 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no background at all in this subject, but I'd have to ask what you would do about an article on the "continent" if merged. To just redirect to Indo-Australian Plate would just confuse. Plus the definitions are different - as I understand it the definition of continent used in this article is the continental shelf, while the plate covers a much larger area. --Michael Johnson 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Tectonic plates do not delineate continents -- if so, we should (for instance) merge Asia with Eurasian Plate, North American Plate, et al. Cogito ergo sumo 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand

  • Recent edits have added New Zealand ot this article. The first by User:Lumos3 added The island of New Zealand is not considered to be part of the continent of Australia but is placed as part of the region known as Australasia for purposes of human geography. Which seems to me to be fine. User:Petaholmes then requested a citation with the edit summary NZ claim. part of NZ is on the Australian plate[16] I do not believe New Zealand is considered part of the continent. The map preoduced by Geoscience Australia at http://www.ga.gov.au/oceans/mc_LawSea.jsp which shows the continental shelf does not seem to show the continental shelf extending to New Zealand.

I don't think we need a cite for NZ being part of Australasia - this would come into the realm of common knowledge -I did in fact just check the dictionary and it is there. We of course have an article on it which is at present totally unreferenced. I have added a request for references for the whole article pending a chance for me to assist with this task. However, the wikilink shoudl surely suffice for a citation.

Is there doubt though that NZ is part of the Australian continent? While part of NZ may be on the Indo-Australian Plate, it is my understanding that that does not make it on part of the continent.--Golden Wattle talk 21:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eastern Indonesia and biogeog

I see someone has removed the reference to extending the continent into eastern Indonesia. This seems silly. Can't understand the definition of continent being used here. --Michael Johnson 01:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd now say the article is incorrect from a biological point of view. If the reference is not made to the Wallace line, then all references to biology should be removed. I really don't know enough about geology to comment on that section. --Michael Johnson 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the continent of Australia entails more than just notions of biogeography (which are still legitimate) -- arguably, it was incorrect and 'silly' to place so much emphasis on this aspect to the exclusion of others. Continents are primarily delineated by shorelines and (by extension) their continental shelves -- which is corroborated by a number of sources including The McGraw Concise Encyclopedia of Earth Science -- not just by the prevalence or uniqueness of flora and fauna in areas of note. Continents may or may not coincide with ecozones or bioregions (e.g., Wallacea notwithstanding, the Lydekker line west of New Guinea corresponds to the Australian continental shelf), but it is incorrect to assume these entities are all one and the same. Said biogeographical content merely needs to be reframed, not removed. Cogito ergo sumo 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the silly comment - can now see where you are coming from. The biology section does need some clarification. --Michael Johnson 02:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
AOK; I also have some background in biology, so I'll try to tweak the content regarding notions of biogeography et al. when I get a few moments. My main challenge, actually, is in knowing which system of bioregions/ecozones to include -- content in Wp does not seem to reflect the prevailing 'state' of affairs (e.g., Arctogea, etc.). :) Cogito ergo sumo 03:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested change of article name

The scope of this article is good but I think there are better names for it. There is much debate above about the Australia-only vs Australia-New Guinea basis for the continent. Good points have been raised by JackofOz and others and while I think they are ultimately red herrings, they have been dismissed with arguments that don’t stand up.

There are several different meanings of the words continent and continental. One is a continuous landmass or mainland, a second is all the lands and islands on a continental shelf and a third includes associated oceanic islands not on the shelf. Taking Europe for example, the “Continent” or “continental Europe” is only the mainland, the 2nd definition includes islands on the shelf like the British Isles and the 3rd includes oceanic islands like Iceland.

In the case of Australia, the first and most common meaning is the Australian mainland. To dismiss this as pedagogic simplification is (ironically) an oversimplification, if not actually wrong. Sometimes continent appears to be a synecdoche for the whole of the country of Aust., as in the title of the book by historian David Day, “Claiming a continent: a history of Australia” (1996). And sometimes it means Aust and NG. To dismiss the term “island continent” as an informal term for marketing is incorrect. Sir Grenfell Price, a leading Australian geographer, titled his 1972 book about Aust, "Island Continent". Arthur Scholes, in the foreword to his book about Aust, "The Sixth Continent" (1958), said “[this] is the story of an island continent”. A much more recent publication, "Australia: the complete encyclopedia" (2001) says, “Today the island continent of Australia extends from about 10 S to 45 S”.

Writers, from scholars to journalists, usually mean the Aust mainland. Marcus Clarke titled an 1877 book “History of the continent of Australia and the island of Tasmania”. Geographer Ronald Heathcote made a similar distinction, “around Tasmania and the southeastern coasts of the continent” (‘’Australia’’ 1994, 12), while also recognising the broader definition: “If the boundaries of the continent are extended to the 100 fathom line to include the offshore continental shelf, a … component forming a link with the island of New Guinea could be distinguished. However … attention here will be limited to the main continental area” (p15). Flannery and Schouten said, “Australia, which comprises the bulk of Meganesia, is indeed the smallest continent” (in Natural History 102 (6) 40-45, 1993). I searched the SMH [17] for “continent” and all the references in the Australian context seemed to refer to the mainland. And as JackofOz points out above, many Wikipedia articles refer to the mainland as the continent. This is not wrong – it is just different from the concept that this article is based on.

I think the best solution is to rename this article. Note that Johnson (2004, 12) (cited by Snottygobble/Hesperian) said “the continent extends to the edge of the continental shelf”. He did not say, “Australia extends to the edge of the continental shelf”. In fact, on the same page he has an image of Australia that does not include NG, and elsewhere he refers to “the Australian continent” with no indication he means to include NG (eg, p 106). Much of the earlier debates above are about the ambiguous terms “the continent Australia”, “the Australian continent” or “the continent of Australia”. The objections raised are unlikely to be raised if we were instead discussing the continent of “Australia-New Guinea”, “Sahul”, “Meganesia” etc.

An article name, to distill down Wikipedia’s article naming convention, should be well-known (easily recognised and readily thought of when making links) and reasonably unambiguous. Unlike article content, common usage is more important than recent scholarship – see WP:COMMONNAME. By these criteria, the merits of the candidates are:

  • Australia (continent). Very ambiguous as it commonly refers to the mainland. Has a country bias similar to Greater Australia (see following).
  • Greater Australia. Could be ambiguous (Mainland & Tas; Aust & NG; Aust & territories). Rejected by scholars, along with Greater New Guinea[1]
  • Australia-New Guinea. Unambiguous. Easily recognisable. No reason that link-makers should not think of it.
  • Sahul. Unambiguous; differentiated from Sahul Shelf. Used more than the following names but not as easily recognised as Australia-New Guinea.
  • Meganesia. Ambiguous – also used to mean Aust & NZ (Theroux, 1992) and Aust, NZ & Hawaii (according to Wareham, 2002).
  • Australinea. Unambiguous. Invented by Dawkins (2004) and little used. Excludes smaller islands like the Aru Islands, according to a review by Tim Flannery.

Looking at it objectively I think Australia-New Guinea is the leading contender, although I have a personal liking for Sahul.

  1. ^ Denoon, Donald (2005). Trial separation: Australia and the decolonisation of Papua New Guinea, p. 2. “Scholars refuse to call this lost continent Greater Australia (or Greater New Guinea), so the obscure ‘Sahul’ is its usual name”

Nurg 10:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this debate is in good hands. I support Nurg's proposal for a rename, and I'll trust his judgement on the new name. Hesperian 11:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand the points made by Nurg, but the point of this article (and I queried its intention early on) was to talk about the continent and not the island. In the first instance the lead should define what we are talking about and I think does so. If we want to move away from Australia (continent) as an article title, then I favour either Sahul or Australinea, but I suspect both those terms come with their own baggage and are not quite as general and I would prefeer redirects from those to the simpler Australia (continent). I do not favour Australia-New Guinea as that seems too tied up with political boundaries.
Nurg makes the point about continental Europe excluding say the British Isles. I feel that is because it is an Anglocentric term and the Continent is somewhere you travel too. The English of a certain generation and class would use it in the same breath as talking about the "Near East" and the "Far East" ... fine terms for the English of a certain period but we are talking continent small c and lining up with articles such as that on North America, different discussion to English travelling in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Often for many people North America is synonomous with the United States but they can quickly disentangle themselves from that as Canada is so large. Note that North America as a continent does not equal North American Plate. If you ask somebody to list continents they do not go Africa, Asia, North and South America, Antarctica, Sahul ... or Australinea or Australia-New Guinea - the last in that list is Australia. We need to make it clear in the name that we are not talking the political entity. We need to make it clear in the lead how we have defined our terms. The term continent, as per the English travelling classes to name just one group, can be used in different ways. Wikipedia has an article on Continent and there it has listed the subject of this article as Australia, another name would not match the list in that article in my opinion - but we should certainly discuss it there too if changing the article name.
If any editor thinks that the term "island continent" does not derive from pedagogic simplification ... I have no difficulty with a rewrite of that section and an expansion to acknowledge popular usage, for example as per Nurg's search of the Sydney Morning Herald and reference to various scholars (normally in the arts though). My write up on that point was in response to a couple of comments on the article such as can be seen above, for example those by DXRAW, on this talk page, which were asserting "every single student in Australia is taught that Australia is a continent of its own" plus "In Australia we are taught that the continent of Australia is only our country and that New Guinea and other country :P are part of Asia. This is what the Australian education system says." from Rkeys.
As one point of reference of what Australian school children are taught, the NSW HSC curriculum at [18] states "The Australian continent lies entirely within the Australia-India plate, and so it does not experience plate boundary processes." At [19] doesn't help with a definition but for example discusses the "Interaction between the converging Australian and Pacific plates has produced the current New Guinea mobile belt." They also refer to continent probably as in island continent at [20] and [21] [22] etc - it isn't clear. They never refer in their curriculum to "Sahul" or "Australianea" (at least not found by Google): Google HSC curriculum on continent compared with a similar search for Sahul or Australinea
Not sure where that leaves us, other than the importance of a lead clearly defining terms and robust referencing. I would really rather not go for the alternate article names as above, they are not simple and don't match the continent series, but of course won't object if concensus goes another way.--Golden Wattle talk 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Amen to what Nurg said. —Nightstallion (?) 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that Matthew Flinders and Lachlan Macquarie were not thinking of New Guinea when they proposed "Australia" as the name for the country (although it wasn't a country back then, just a collection of British colonies, which did not even cover the entire big island). The issue seems to be that geographers, in their wisdom(?), have only relatively recently given the name "Australia" to a continent, when the name already applied to a country that was a part of that continent. (God only knows what they were thinking of. They would never have named Africa "Nigeria", for example, because of the obvious scope for confusion.) I wonder if we can find out when this continent-naming occurred, and why they chose that particular name. If "Australia" is indeed the accepted formal technical geographical term for the continent, I don't think that Wikipedia has any brief - consensus or not - to go around renaming it to anything else, as this would breach our no original research policy. Besides, nobody but us few would know of the existence of this new name, and we'd have an article that few people would ever read. But on the other hand, "Sahul" also exists. So are geographers unanimous in what they call the continent? If not, why not, and do they intend to get together to agree on what the continent will be known as? Can we do anything to influence that decision to ensure it is NOT called "Australia". In the meantime, I still firmly believe that readers of the article about the country Australia need to be informed that the same name also refers to a larger entity, and that the continent and the country are not coterminous, but overlap. Another issue that's just dropped into my mind is that some years ago Australia the big island lost its claim as the world's largest island, on the basis that it is more correctly described as a continental land mass, and the honour now goes to Greenland. I can accept that. However, if the big island is no longer viewed as a continent but only part of a continent, doesn't that mean that it's an island after all and should be restored to its place as the world's largest. If it's not a continent in its own right, and it's not an island, what is it? JackofOz 23:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I do think it is important that we define what we are talking about. To that end, I have placed the words "In geology," at the beginning of the article. Just so people know we are not talking about political, historical, biological or any other definition. If we are talking about the geological continent, then we should use the name geologists use, and just make that clear. Other than that I really don't have an opinion. --Michael Johnson 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/s/Talk%7EAustralia_%28continent%29_4881.html"