Talk:Continent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
Start Continent has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Archive I


Contents

[edit] Number of continents

The 7-continent model is taught in Croatia, also.


[edit] Table of continent models

Having the areas of these continents in brackets in the table is quite disruptive. I suggest splitting the table up like this.

[edit] Models

* 7 continents: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe and Australia.
* 6 continents: Asia, America, Africa, Antarctica, Europe and Australia.
* 6 continents: Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica and Australia.
* 5 continents: Eurasia, America, Africa, Antarctica and Australia.
* 5 continents: Laurasia, Africa, South America, Antarctica and Australia.
* 4 continents: Afrasia, America, Antarctica and Australia.

If u see proper definition of continent!!! u will see that continent is a big land, which is bathed with ocean from all sides!!! so Europ can't be a continent! it is a part of the world!


I've always thought the current continent system was an awful hybrid of geological and cultural dividers. I much prefer the cultural/linguistic method myself, which is why I advocate the following sytem - http://stevewalsh2.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/800px-Continents_vide_couleurs.bmp - Walshicus

[edit] Area

Afrasia 90,500,000 km2
Laurasia 84,500,000 km2
Eurasia 60,300,000 km2
America 42,050,000 km2
Asia 49,700,000 km2
Africa 30,250,000 km2
North America 24,230,000 km2
South America 17,820,000 km2
Antarctica 13,200,000 km2
Europe 10,600,000 km2
Australia 8,500,000 km2 including New Guinea

By the way, why is New Guinea included in Australia. New Guinea is not part of the Australian continent. On the other hand, you might not want to call Australia a continent, then why only include New Guinea and not the whole of Australasia (or Oceania)? Jimp 12Oct05

I like it. Go ahead and put it in! As for Australia, go ahead and change the figures to Australia proper if you like; it's a minor point and not important here. Australasia and Oceania are not continents in most conceptions. Australasia at any rate is a geopolitical concept, and Oceania is mentioned elsewhere. But both Tasmania and New Guinea are geologically part of Australia the same way that the British Isles and Sicily are part of Europe, and very close to the mainland just as they are, but unlike New Zealand or Fiji. Or maybe you'd like to add Oceania as an alternate to Australia, maybe in a second row beneath it? I don't think that would be contentious, unlike replacing Australia with Oceania. kwami 05:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the Australasia article it's no mere geopolitical concept. It's divided from Asia by the Wallace line which is a biologically significant boundary as well as being a tectonic boundary.

I think I will change the figures. The article goes on to talk about which model is taught where. I was never taught that New Guinea was part of the Australian continent.Jimp 12Oct05

Both New Guinea and Tasmania sit on the Australian continental shelf. Before the rising of the sea levels, the three formed Australia-New Guinea/Meganesia/Sahul. Australasia, in its primary definition, is a geopolitical region comprising the former British colonies of Australia and New Zealand, and sometimes including PNG and even Fiji. Less commonly, Australasia means the Australasia ecozone - an ecozone separated from Asia at the hypothetical Wallace line.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
But Tasmania is an Australian state. New Guinea isn't part of Australia

I think you may be confusing 'Australia' the country and 'Australia' the continent, either way i also was never taught that New Guinea is on the Australian continent as its part of the Asian continent?

To me the Australian continent = Australia + nearby islands, Tasmania, and New Zealand

Why is it listed in the table as Australia/Oceania, Oceania is the region, the continent is just Australia

I live in Australia and go to school in Australia and we have always been taught that The continent of Australai consists solely of the country. We were even told New Zealand is not part of the continent and I am sure New Guinea is part of Asia. Just saying this because on your map its shows New Zealand, New Guinea and Micronesia as part of the Australian continent, which they are not. Then again I may be wrong, Australian Schooling is probably pretty biased.

[edit] Done

I've replaced the old list with two tables. I hope people like them. Note: I've rearranged the order of the continents. Whereas they had been ordered by size they now are ordered according to the Dymaxion map by Buckminster Fuller featured in the top right this allowed me to make the table much clearer, for example, "Eurasia" is under "Asia" & "Europe". Jimp 17Oct05

[edit] NPOV

This statement expresses POV in that America (continent) is divided whereas Europe (continent) is united.

There are names for six, but America is often divided, and Europe is often united with Asia.

Look at the converse:

There are names for six, but Eurasia is often divided, and North America is often united with South America.

Which would be Eurasia (continent) and North America (continent).

I would think that it would be best say:

There are names for six, though Eurasia and America are often divided.
or
There are names for six, though Europe and Asia are often combined, as well as North and South America.

As a side note, I have never heard of laurasia as a continent geographically. Geologically sure, but not geographically.

134.250.72.141

This section deals with the history of the term continent, and as such it is correct. Europe and Asia were two of the original three continents. America was the fourth. America was divided before Eurasia was united. Therefore, the only way of getting to five is to divide America, or to discover a new continent. kwami

I would guess that Europe and Asia are traditionally considered separate continents because where they come together at Istanbul they would SEEM like almost separate land masses virtually surrounded by water if one knew nothing of their geography further north. Does anyone know if that is the reason? Where would one start with the historical research? User:Shulgi

The Europe and Asia concepts (and words) go back at least to the ancient Greeks. Herodotus wrote about the terms and concepts in his book The History (see parts 4.40 to 4.45 or so). He writes about the world being divided into three parts, Europe, Asia, and Libya (Africa). His geographic knowledge was quite good for the time, but still quite distorted and vague and missing vast areas. For example, he claims that Europe is as long, east-west, as Africa and Asia combined. Apparently Herodotus regarded all of northern Asia as part of Europe. He regards the boundary between the two as the Black Sea, Caucasias Mountains, Capsian Sea, and east of that his knowledge becomes vague. So his Asia is essentially modern Turkey, Arabia, Iran (Persia), and India.
On the origin of the names and why the world was so divided, he doesn't know. He writes: "I cannot guess why, since the earth is all one, there should be three names set upon it, all indicating descent from women, or why, for boundaries, the Egyptian Nile is given as one and the Colchian river Phasis as another -- though there are those who speak for the Maeetian river Tanaïs and the Cimmerian Ferries. Nor can I find out the names of those who established these boundaries or whence they got these names of descent." (History 4.45) I think the Phasis River is today's Kura River and the Tanaïs is today's Don River (Russia). Anyway, this could be a place to start in trying to learn how Europe and Asia became defined as they are. Pfly 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographic Realms?

I found the Geographic Realms article. I hope people in touch with this article may see if the information found there is worth to add here. If not, I guess it should be deleted. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! IMO: mildly interesting, but unsourced and not necessarily verifiable; may also smack of POV. Consolidate/co-ordinate with subregions or delete it. E Pluribus Anthony 05:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete my article!!!!!!!!!!!! My article breaks up the world in CULTURAL regions, NOT PHYSICAL (like a continent) by the way I added my source.

Cameron Nedland 19:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah; "more or less"? If there's a body of literature that can support these definitions (and if they can be cited/verified), a separate article may be warranted; if not (or even if so), consolidate/co-ordinate with subregions or delete it. E Pluribus Anthony 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The articles information comes from a college textbook by H. J. de Blij.

Cameron Nedland 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that particular article seeks to explore Huntington's Clash of Civilizations notion or De Blij's "Realms and Regions" school book series? Both make quite interesting reading, with many philosophical theses and theories to ponder. And maps to admire! =] //Big Adamsky 21:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
My information comes from De Blij.

Cameron Nedland 16:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, then, beef up the article with these ... particularly (and we can too) if you can cite sources, and wikilink to other articles where needed. :) Oh: unless this term is specific, the article should probably be at/entitled Geographic realms (lower case r). E Pluribus Anthony 16:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Cameron, I'm thinking that these are all just ways of dividing up humanity and associated physical zones and mental spheres according to various subjective (but nonetheless fascinating) criteria of common denominators and fault lines. Maybe such thoughts don't really merit an entire encyclopedic entry of their own? You could always try to incorporate some of Huntington's or De Blij's points into other relevant articles, such as subregion. If so, I'd be glad to help out. Chanukka Matata! B-} //Big Adamsky 17:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Further to this, the term/notion doesn't seem to be very prevalent (at least online): there are relatively few mentions through Google of "geographic realm". This is, by no means, the only gauge of whether the article should hold. If the article can be enhanced, great; if not, perhaps it would be better to incorporate relevant notions into the subregion article. E Pluribus Anthony 21:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok. I'll see what I can do.

66.205.108.8 01:58, 5 January 2006

I've been following the discussion about the "Geographic Realms" entry and

have taken the time to go through it and list some serious problems. It is fixable but then needs to be put under one of the human geography sections. It should not be put on the continents page since that is a physical geography section. I haven't heard back from anyone. Is anybody out there? WLE 23:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] POV Map

Someone has naively included a United Nations produced map; I imagine they assumed the United Nations was free of political and fiscal manipulation by Corporate America. Of course the map is meant to represent regions of the world by geographic and / or ethnic groupings; as a result the entire map is expected to show irregular boundaries as oppose to the straight lines which political States or corportaions draw to divide lands in disregard to ethnic or geographic groupings.

And the U.N. map does show this, excepting for one straight North-South line ; most people might not be aware of the U.N.'s first political intrigue and its conflict of interests between John Rockefeller donating $8m of land for the U.N. building and fast tracking a mostly Asian Federation designed to be overthrown by a internal military power promising to give Rockefeller's companies access to the wealth of Asia in exchange for his support. In any event, the island of Papua, or as German speakers called it New Guinea, should not be divided by this political border designed to protect the gold mining interests of Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.211.30.95.182 04:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Paranoid fantasies aside, can you imagine a body, designed to facilitate international diplomacy, implicitly advocating the dissolution of a sovereign member state by dividing Indonesia in two? Please. kwami 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hillarious comment! =] //Big Adamsky 19:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to explain WHY the Wikipedia should mis-represent what you yourself described as a political map, as a "geographical subregions" map ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.84.166 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 January 2006.
I agree H: a spade is a spade and there's no misrepresentation. The apparent UN-POV, which is cited and verifiable, is of course countered by a 'NPOV' from an anonymous IP regarding New Guinea and the North-South dichotomy. Hmmm; which do I choose? Next. E Pluribus Anthony 11:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The caption says right there "in use by the United Nations". It does not claim that it is the absolute truth. There is therefore nothing wrong, in my mind, with including the map. —Felix the Cassowary 12:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
User:211.30.84.166, please do not delete talk page content, unless you discover unfactual slander/slurs. Also, do feel free to enlighten yourself at this related discussion. //Big Adamsky 13:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The "in use by the United Nations" citation is good, but does not warn a reader that this specific document (the map) has been subjected to political editing to avoid the alleged insult to Indonesia which kwami mentions above. Can anyone seriously claim the western half of New Guinea is in Asia? Either a corrected map should be provided or the error identified.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.84.166 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 January 2006.

Please do not remove other editors' comments unless you can justify such action through our no personal attacks policy. Admittedly, BA's initial comment has not contructive and perhaps mocking, but its not necessary to remove it or his secondary advice. Also, please sign your posts.--cj | talk 14:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not an error and doesn't require correction. And yes: politically and arguably, the western half (Irian Jaya) is in Southeastern Asia (as part of Indonesia) and/or Australasia/Oceania (part of Papua New Guinea); for additional discourse, see BA's link above. E Pluribus Anthony 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The map as the anon alluded to does not actually show continental regions in the tectonic sense- rather it shows loose political subdivisions- and is in this instance an inappropriate image for an article on continents. A better illustration would be one like this.--nixie 13:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This map shows continents
This map shows continents
That is indeed much better.--cj | talk 14:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The current map also mkaes no sense in terms of the text- which discusses a 7 continent model - while the map shows supposed "subcontinents" model not mentioned in the text at all.--nixie 14:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What is a "contintental region in the tectonic sense"? The article itself says that definitions using tectonic plates have rarely been accepted. The map also shows things like parts of Indonesia as being part of the same thing as Australia and the arbitrary division between Europe and Asia which are not justified on tectonic grounds. I do not claim that it's an unreasonable definition of the contintents (I mostly agree with it, in fact), but it's certainly based on historic and social grounds. In that sense, it's not "better", just "different". Simi'ly, there are also very real political and commercial senses in which Irian Jaya is a part of Asia, but Papua New Guinea is a part of Australia and Oceania/the Pacific. (Nixie brings up a good point though, posted after I wrote this. Damn slow brain.) —Felix the Cassowary 14:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent map! This map limits itself to showing only what the article is actually covering, namely the continents, whereas the other images show additional/different information. Colours are nice and clear, too! I'm putting it in right away, folks. 8σ] //Big Adamsky 14:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


By all means inlcude both, but what the UN map is showing needs to be clearly defined in the article so it doesn't further confuse the mess of definitions discussed in the article.--nixie 15:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
In response to the postings of E Pluribus Anthony and User:211.30.84.166 up there: I think it is essential to distinguish between
  1. which continents certain islands (should) "belong to" or be associated with (see also this attempt to present the continental appertainance of Indonesia)
  2. how to best depict cartographically the area covered by a particular state or grouping of states.
By the way, New Guinea is not called "New Guinea" in German (it's the English name). And also, its western half has recently been renamed Papua, which historically was also the name of its southeastern part. Trust me, I can understand why so many object to the events in the 1960s and 70s in Dutch New Guinea and Portuguese Timor (and other instances of annexation, irredentism and separatism in many other places), but I think we still need to let the UN position on matters of international law override all such considerations. There is still plenty of room for critical discussion in these articles and for footnotes in tables that draw attention to the fact that a status or border might not be unanimously recognized by the entire world community. Sound fair enough? //Big Adamsky 15:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the UN map doesn't have much to do with most of the article. At best it goes with the section on subcontinents/subregions. And I also like the newly proposed map, beside the purdy colors, for the fact that none of the continental boundaries follow political boundaries. But of course it too is POV. Why should a couple ditches (the Panama & Suez Canals) define continents? (POV) Why should the ecological Wallace line define a continent? (POV) I presume that Easter Is. is included in Australia. (POV) I think it's a good map, maybe as good as we can get, but no matter what we do someone is going to object to some aspect of it, and we won't be able to justify it with any rigor. kwami 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Very to-the-point points indeed. Well, if all of these points of view are addressed and given due mention in the article then it should end up reasonably balanced, eh? As long as all agree on what we are counting, then it should be pretty straight forward.
I really like the note about the deliberate choice of colours from the creator of Image:Continents vide couleurs.png. //Big Adamsky 19:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Great map! I agree with using the current image too – it's clear, sensible, and more descriptive of the traditional notion of what the commonly-known continents are. I may tweak it a bit (i.e., make it larger). However, the original notion of the prior map being POV is in fact, just another POV: as stated, depending on authority, there are various interpretations of what a continent actually is – geographically (islands or not), geophysically/seismologically, culturally, politically, even ecologically, etc. Whatever map(s) are included, including the two of note, they must summatively state rationale/source in a proviso. E Pluribus Anthony 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geological POV

Hello. I'm not sure if it was my map you are talking about or not. I made a map for Wikipedia showing the geographic subregions used by the UN Statistics Division.

There's a problem with this article as it stands. It focuses on the geological concept of a continent to the exclusion of the political concept. Each continent has a definition, the "political" definition, in which countries are allocated in their entirity to one continent or another. This is perhaps best illustrated by a country like New Zealand, which geologically is non-continental, but which is politically part of the continent of Oceania.

Now if you look around the Internet, or around other resources, you will probably find it reasonably easy to categorise the use of the term continent as political or geological. If we can keep those concepts separate in our minds hopefully we can write a more balanced article that addresses both concepts without defining one or other as normative.

Politically, the only debate seems to be debate about whether East Timor should be allocated to Asia or Oceania. The UN Statistics Division assigns it to Asia. If we can find sources that assign it to Oceania then we can address the dispute appropriately in the article.

So I suggest:

  • We make it clear in the introduction that continent is both a geological term and a political term. Citing the Australia/Oceania case may assist in illustrating the point.
  • We create a new section to describe the political assignment of countries to continents and note any disputes.
  • We put the map of UN subregions in the new political section.

What do others think?

Ben Arnold 23:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I separated geology vs. geography to some extent. The revert wars prior to that had been ridiculous. It might be wise to make this distinction more rigorous, as you suggest. However, there is no universal definition of geographic continents. For many people, Oceania specifically excludes Australia, for example. kwami 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geology

I would advise merging the last two sections into a section called "Geology" Geologists use of the word "continent" is the same as a geographer's. Plus I can correct the use of geology jargon; some of it's pretty loose. For example, "lithospheric mantle and crust": I know the lithosphere includes the crust and upper mantle, but the mantle definitely can't be described as lithospheric. And metamorphic rock forms at depth and/or at high temperatures, so it is not necessarily found on top of granitic rock.--Cjackb 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I take it you mean merging the 'Geologic continents' section with 'Tectonic plates'? That would make sense. Merging either of them with 'Geographic continents', though, wouldn't; moreover, perhaps the section titles/content need to be refined? Cite sources. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think refering the community of geographer as scientific community is pushing it a bit. Anyway, it is better to disambiguate POV according to appropriate definition. FWBOarticle 16:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In Germany at least, but probably in much more of Europe the six continent model is taught, taking North and South of America as one continent! In German America has no plural.

[edit] Not true

"In East Asia, especially in the Orient, it is taught as a 7-region model since the rendition of "continent" in Chinese is similar to "island", which connotes a separate smaller landmass surrounded by water. "

Not true - it is called the 7 continents. --Sumple (Talk) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. 大陸 (Continent) should be opposite of 島 (island). Both require water to sorround it. If it is taught differently in China, do they call Europe, European大陸? FWBOarticle

"The 6-continent Americas model is taught in England"... this is rubbish too, I'm english and I've never heard this model. I've always been taught that there are 7.

I also live in England and have never been taught the 6-continent model. The 7 continent model is what the national curriculum specifies should be taught and is what the significant majority of English people would refer to the world as being divided into. "The 6-continent Americas model is taught in England" is incorrect and superflous

It's actually more incorrect than stated, in Latin America and Iberia it's taught a 5-continent model and, as far as I understand it all of Western Europe, except for England (and this is probably for political reasons) a 5-continent model is taught as well.
There is obviously not one single model and it's admirable that and effort has been made to reflect this, but the final distribution is completely incorrect. eduo 09:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia or Oceania

The most common name for the Continent where Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Polynesia and other countries is located is Oceania. Australia is the name of one specific country of Oceania and not the name of the whole continent. We can see, for example, the Oceania Football Confederation. Can I change it to Oceania? --201.44.215.240 15:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Oceania is not geologically or geographically a continent. It is a only conceptually so, as a matter of convenience.--cj | talk 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Sporting associations use the geographical region of oceania rather than the continent of Australia to differentiate regions because it wouldn't make any sense to reference the continent of Australia as its own region due to the fact that there is only one country on the continent of Australia. Factoid Killer 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
While it is more properly a region (and I'm not debating this point per se), there are numerous instances (for example, Collins World Atlas and the online Atlas of Canada) where Oceania is referred to as a continent. However, whether this is due to propriety, convenience, or consistency with the six 'other' major regions/continents – given the islandic nature of this region – remains to be seen. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Oceania is not a physiographic continent, neither in the standard definition of a continuous landmass nor in the broader sense of mainland plus continental islands (ie, islands on the same continental shelf). Most lands of Oceania are oceanic islands, ie, non-continental islands. The 2 templates at the bottom of the article have it right - Oceania is one of the major regions of the world but not a continent. I have checked the continent entry in 8 encyclopedias and dictionaries (Britannica, Columbia, Macmillan, Hutchinson, Crystal Ref, Andromeda's Illus Dict of Sci, Houghton Mifflin Dict of Geog, Oxford Dict - English & Amer) - they all list the continents and not one mentions Oceania. Incidentally, all but 1 give the 7 continents, altho Britannica notes "Eur & Asia are sometimes considered a single continent"; Columbia gives 6 continents but notes Eurasia is "conventionally regarded as 2 continents". Any mention of Oceania in the article should state that it can only be considered a continent as a cultural construct. Nurg 03:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that Australia itself is a continent, but you cannot deny that the islands around it are also part of that region of the world and in practice should be considered part of the same continent. In Africa, Madagascar is still considered to be a part of the continent and in Asia the Indonesian archipelago is also considered to be part of the continent. Australia is a Nation, an island, and it constitutes the vast majority of the continent it is part of. Because of political reasons concerning objectivity and points of view, we must for the common good name the continent Oceania. The continent is in itself a collection of islands and isles (whether you like it or not Australia is in itself an island) and should be referred to as Oceania, because if we do not, we are only referring to one nation and we are forgetting many others. I know that by Australia you do not mean the country, but to the uneducated masses it would seem that we are regarding Australia as a nation, which we do not want to do. We want to be objective; hence we must call the continent Oceania. We all agree that the National Geographic Society is a dedicated, objective and knowledgeable association in the field of geography. Their atlases have always described the continent we are talking about as Oceania and not Australia. On another note, regarding the 7 continent part of your response, well, Let me tell you sir that the 7 continent format is strictly American, Canadian and British. The number of continents defers from place to place, to many America y one continent and Europe and Asia are two separate ones. It is not wrong, it is not right to see it as this, it is just different, and just because they think differently than us we must not criticize it or condemn it. But please change Australia to Oceania. 201.98.153.203 18:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We can be objective and correct at the same time. Geologically speaking, Oceania is absolutely not a continent, while Australia (including some of the surrounding islands) absolutely is. For this reason, we have the article Australia (continent). That's not to say Oceania isn't a region of the world, and it should appear on atlases (and Template:Regions of the world) as such. But it's not a continent. -- bcasterline • talk 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
There are many people, both anglophone and francophone, who use the term Oceania to describe this continent. Voilà three sources.[1], [2], [3] I've put Oceania (back) into the article, and corrected some confusion between Australia the country and Australia (Oceania) the continent. --Aquarelle 12:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's times like this,

It's times like this, that I wish wikipedians wouldn't care about politics and simply write a geological meaning. --161.76.99.106 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, at least as the primary one --161.76.99.106 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Geological definition

I agree this article should start with a good geological definition, since "continent" DOES, in fact, have a distinct geological definition - as distinctive as as "vertibrate" is to a Biologist, and very different from a geographer's.

Continents are land masses characterized by a platform of stable ancient (Precembrian aged) metamorphic and igneous rock called the "craton". The central parts of the craton, which is not covered with younger sedimentary rock, are called the "shield". The ancient cratonic rocks are an accretionary mishmash of old long-gone mountain belts and/or fragments of other continents from earlier cycles of continintal collision/break up. An outward-thickening veneer of younger, minimally deformed sedimentary rock covers the craton. The margins of the continent contain "mobile belts" - currently-active or recently active mountain belts of deformed, predominantly sedimentary rock. Beyond the continental margin, there is a: 1) shelf and drop off to the basaltic-rock ocean basin; or, 2) the margin of another continent, depending on the current plate-tectonic setting of the continent.

So, continents are accretionary structures not unlike the ice pancakes and rafts that form, fuse, breakup and re-forms on a river when temperatures fall sufficiently below freezing. As long as the "joint" between two cemented rafts are still apparent, they are still considered separate because of the other separate distinct structures.

By this definition, Europe and Asia are separate continents since they have separate, distince shield areas and a (albeit fairly old) mostly sedimentary rock mountain belt (the Urals) forming the mutual margin. Also, India is a bona-fide continent too - it also contains a central shield, and the very active Himalaya form it's northern margin. And, North America and South America are separate continents the connecting istmus being only the result of recent subduction tectonics. New Zealand is not a continent yet - it still needs another cycle or two of tectonic events to form the necessary craton structure, but in the process will probably lose it's "identity" since one of those events will likely be an absorbing collision with a large continent.

Comments? I'll re-do the geology part of this article - and probably move it to the beginning as a start of fixing this article.

[edit] Ext links removed from article

These links removed from article as none are about continents per se.

Nurg 10:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Australia is a country but not a continent

None of country has been having its name same as its participating continent or vise versa. Australia is the biggesst island of the globe because island can be named as country; there are many examples. One must call Oceania a continent if he/she wishes Australia remains as a part of continent.Kevin Taylor 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If one were so inclined, they could pile a heap of references that Australia is a continent, no problem. My desktop dictionary lists 7 continents, including Australia - to pick the closest example (~1 meter) WilyD 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"ORIGIN from Latin Terra Australis ‘the southern land’, the name of the supposed southern continent."[4] ¦ Reisio 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Not this again, why is Oceania listed, and why is "Australia alone" listed in the continent sizes table? Can't people get it, that 'Australia' is the name of the country, AND ALSO the name of the continent which includes the outlying islands (and in some definitions, New Guinea)
Listing "Australia alone" is referring to the NATION named Australia, which shouldn't be a reference made at all, "Oceania - 8 500 000" should read "Australia - 8 500 000" and the word Australia should be linked to the Australia_(continent) page..
Oceania shouldn't be listed there, or in the table above, or anywhere else, as it is a political region, geographical region, etc
Calling Oceania a continent directly contradicts the 'Oceania' page, and the 'Continents of the World' table/template at the bottom of the page
I think we should change these things.. --Nirvana- 03:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continent definition 100 years ago

My father is 90 years old, I'm spanish but for him the continents are four, which is consistent with the continent definition: Old continent(Africa, Asia and Europe), New Continent (America), Antartica and Australia. Australia is a country and a continent simoultaneusly, there are the Australia country and the Australia continent, like in spain is the city of Madrid and the region of Madrid.

There is another typical definition confused with the continents, this is "parts of the world", which is a political division, Oceania is a part of the world as Europe, but not a continent.

[edit] Continent meaning in British English

When the Continent is referred to without clarification by a speaker of British English from Europe, it is usually presumed to mean Continental Europe, that is, Europe excluding the British Isles

I modified the above to include from Europe. It depends on your definition of British English but it is fairly common to say that Kiwis and Australians speak British English or a variant thereof. However while Kiwis and Australians may usually understand the usage of the term, they're less likely to use it. Indians, Malaysian and Singaporeans and I suspect some Africans who are also said by some to speak British English are unlikely to use the term with that meaning and many are probably not that likely to understand it either... Nil Einne 10:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahem... Don't think Latin Americans consider Antarctica a continent

I disagree with this sentence:

The 6-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America,
Iberia and some other parts of Europe.

In the part of Latin America where I live - Costa Rica - part of my explanation that American doesn't mean americano includes the number of continents: seven (according to my American education). My students from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Chile, and Argentina agree that there are FIVE continents, count 'em: América (from Canada to Tierra del Fuego), Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceanía. What about Antarctica? Their teachers never mentioned it, so it's not a continent, so there. Other students (I think from Columbia and Ecuador) learned there were six (divide América into North and South America and voilà).

So we can't generalize about Latin America. Shall we take a poll and specify which countries in Latin America teach 5 and which 6? Also, keep in mind the subset of students who go to bilingual schools in Latin America. They will often learn American, English, German, French (etc.) views of continental geography. Dblomgren 04:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


I studied some years in Latin America and what I was tought; there were 6. Antartica is usually excluded because it's desertic. You can see that even in worldwide known issues the continent is excluded, just look at the olympic games logo. each circle supposedly represent each continent... and about the spanish name for this symbol (~) it's virgulilla. chech the name in the spanish wiki... it's there. --F3rn4nd0 01:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. In Colombia and Venezuela, but it may defer by country, Latin America is very diverse. Educational guidelines are established by ministries of education (Department of Education). But something interesting is that most of the Latin American major countries have signed the Antarctic Treaty System that recognizes Antartica. read also: [5]

--F3rn4nd0 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, this article implies that Latin Americans subdivide a single American continent 2 ways (North-Central and South). Considering Central America (Costa Rica to Tehuantepec) a separate subcontinent is geologically quite justified and is a commonplace view in Guatemala, where I live. I'm putting in weasel words as a minimum first step, obviously if someone wants to do a cleaner solution you're welcome to. --Homunq 19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Polling aside, this sort of information needs to be sourced since a number of other understandings of what comprise continents are referenced and interpretations can otherwise vary widely. If anything, the IOC reckoning of continents (demonstrated through the flag and current continental voting blocs) agrees with the understanding of your students, Dblomgren; see sources in the article. So, is Antarctica considered a continent because it's a landmass or is it excluded because it's desertic/generally unpopulated? Corticopia 19:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese view

I've asked for a citation for the Japanese view because it is unclear. I take it they count 6 continents but do they count the Americas as one (implied in the History section) or do they count the Americas as two but Asia and Europe as one (stated in the Models section)? Nurg 08:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese use the 6-continent model with Eurasia. Source: goo dictionary - 大陸
地球上の広大な陸地。普通、ユーラシア（ヨーロッパ・アジア）・アフリカ・北アメリカ・南アメリカ・オーストラリア・南極の六大陸をいう。
(A large landmass on Earth. The six continents of Eurasia (Europe and Asia), Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica are usually recognized.)
TAKASUGI Shinji 03:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I presume you meant North & South America, not N & S Africa. Nurg 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the two Americas. Corrected my previous post. In Japanese, 大陸 (continent) and 州 (region) are clealy different; the latter means one of the following six regions: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Europe, and Oceania (not Australia). (Source: goo dictionary - 六大州) I'm sick and tired of Westerners who stick to the concept of Europe as a continent, but I understand it's because the word continent is both geographical and cultural/historical. - TAKASUGI Shinji 01:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of continents

The table with the size of the continents is wrong. The sum of the size of all continents from the table totals to 339,230,000 [Km^2]. In the article "Oceans" the total surface of the oceans on the globe is given as 361,000,000 [Km^2]. From the average radius of the Earth, equal to 6,367.4425 [Km], one can compute the surface of the Earth as 509,495,002 [Km^2]. This number is much smaller then the sum of the surface of continents and oceans on the Earth, given in this encyclopedia. The total surface of the continents on Earth should be 148,495,001 [Km^2], if the number, given for the surface of the oceans is correct.

Regards, Boris Spasov, bspasov@yahoo.com

You are double- and triple-counting when you add them all together. Nurg 09:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ideal model

The model that makes the most sense is the 4 continent model. The second best one is the 6 continent model that includes N. and S. America, Africa, EurAsia, Australia, and Antarctica. By the way, the Olympic rings need to reflect either of the above models.Jlujan69 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The historical reasons

The concept of the continent was invented in the Ancient Age by Greeks and Romans to refer to the lands around the Mediterranean Sea. This lands were their world, so for them, the World was composed by the northern lands (Europe), the eastern lands (Asia) and the southern lands (Africa). In the west was just the Ocean. In 1492 Columbus arrived to some new lands, until then unknown by Europeans, and Vespucci called them America. Later, in the 16th century, were discovered Australia and many islands in the Pacific Ocean, and were called Oceania. In the beginning of the 20th century, these were the 5 continents (the continents that are reflected by the 5 Olympic rings in the flag invented by Pierre de Coubertin and used for the first time in 1920). There was only one more important part of the world that wasn't included in this classifications, because it was unhabited: the Antarctica, and recently it has been added to the list of the continents. So, for me, these are the continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Oceania and the Antarctica. In some sciences, this division can be difficult to use, and some subdivisions can be used, but if we change the list and significance of the continents every time we want, this classification we'll be unuseful. If every group of people makes their list, the classification of the lands by continents, we'll be absolutely unuseful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.235.32.222 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Australia (continent)

I draw attention to the discussion about this on Talk:Australia (continent), pointing out that if the major revision to the article (which I reverted) is reinstated, then for consistency, the map on this page (and many other pages) will need to revised. Viewfinder 06:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of 'continent of Australia'

Don't worry, this isn't another Oceania/Australia/Australasia argument. In the section "Extent of continents", the article reads and the term "continent of Australia" may refer to the mainland of Australia, excluding Tasmania.. I live in Tasmania and this terminology is never used. The term used is "the mainland" or "mainland Australia". "Continent of Australia" describes the area described in Australia (continent) (ie. Australia, including Tasmania, and New Guinea). -- Chuq 09:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chuq, can you supply a verifiable source in support of your claim that the term "continent of Australia" is correctly used to describe the area you mention? If you can, then we can stick with the status quo and save ourselves the bother of making changes. Viewfinder 10:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. Australia (continent)? Just to clarify - I'm not arguing between the definitions of "Australia" or "Australia plus New Guinea" or "Australia plus New Guinea plus Pacific Islands" - I am arguing that it DOES include Tasmania. From a quick google search, the following links agree with this: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] In fairness I should point out the following link disagrees: [11] but I believe it to be wrong. "Australian mainland" is the only term that I have heard used. -- Chuq 11:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

These links, in multiple contradiction with each other, show a variety of definitions. The third (US government) includes New Zealand; the fourth includes New Guinea also, but they may be an adequate citation of the claim that Australia (continent) CAN be used to refer to a larger area than the mainland or mainland plus Tasmania. What does Nurg think about these? Our status quo is that Australia (continent) DOES cover a wider area, I still don't think that is tenable. Viewfinder 12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


I am copying this section to Talk:Australia (continent) in order to hold the discussion together. Viewfinder 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ishtar and Aphrodite?

Aren't Ishtar Terra and Aphrodite Terra considered continents of Venus?

[edit] Middle East as a separate continent

In a couple of discussions (online and on campus) recently, I've run into references to a movement (cultural? academic? scientific?) to recognize the Middle East as a continent separate from Asia. I came here to see if there was a neutral discussion of such a movement... if anyone is more knowledgable than me regarding such a movement, I think it'd be an interesting addition to the article. Student Driver 15:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North America fork

Hello! I encourage editors involved in this discussion to comment and weigh on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas), a recent fork of North America. Thanks! Corticopia 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again ...

Thanks to those who commented on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way (and the article has been deleted), this has reared its ugly head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete review of North America (region)

Administrator took a dubious decision. The result should have been no concensus. This deleted article was about the region of the Americas named "North America". All of the other regions within the Americas under the various geographical models to divide it, have their own article: Middle America (Americas), Central America, Northern America, Caribbean and South America. Please, read carefully the AfD page and the reasons provided to undelete the article. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he did not -- an apparent consensus of 65% did support the action; see AfD review comments. Corticopia 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subcontinents of America (single continent model)

Tectonic plates of the Americas
Tectonic plates of the Americas

When America is considered a single continent, it is also divided in three subcontinents (North, Central, South). Subcontinents are created due to the fact they lie in their own tectonic plate. This is the case of the Americas, and its 3 subcontinents:

  • North America: North American Plate (small portions of California and Baja California are in the Cocos Plate, see map)
  • Central America: Caribbean Plate
  • South America: South American Plate

I added back the info (deleted by user Corticopia) and added a source, but he deleted it again. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but in no way is the definition of any continent dependent on the nature of any tectonic plate. If this were true, then the entire west half of the Atlantic Ocean basin would be part of the North American Continent, which it is not. Continents are defined geographically, and conventionally, and do not relate to the boundaries of tectonic plates. Tectonic plates include continents and oceanic basin; continents are defined in different ways, mostly by convention and as land areas only. Cheers Geologyguy 00:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my comment. I was not saying the Americas are 3 different continents. I was just saying that in the section "Other continents", America (as in the single continent model) is also divided into three subcontinents. This has nothing to do with continents. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, but subcontinents are not defined on the basis of tectonic plates either. Your South American subcontinent happens to lie upon the South American Tectonic Plate, as does the west half of the South Atlantic Ocean, which is surely not part of the South American continent or subcontinent. Likewise, there are certainly many who would include the political subdivisions, Belize and Guatemala in Central America - but Belize and about the northern half of Guatemala do not lie on the Caribbean Plate. I'm not arguing (I don't care) about the definitions of continents or subcontinents - those are geographical distinctions and/or conventions. My only point is that it does not relate to the definitions of tectonic plates. Cheers - Geologyguy 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, G.: the original argument is rather moot; if that were the case, for example, a large chunk of Siberia (Eur/asia) would be part of North America. This perhaps stems from a confusion between the notions of what are continents (in numerous interpretations), tectonic plates, cratons, and sub/regions.
For this article in the least, though, we should care about definitions for continents. Speaking of which: NO reliable sources have been provided to indicate that Central America is a continent or subcontinent(e) -- Encarta references in English and Spanish only indicate CA is a "región del continente americano" ('region of the American continent') and "que es definida por los geógrafos como parte de América del Norte" ('which is defined by geographers as part of North America') -- so the prior assertion saying otherwise was incorrect anyway. The references were retained, AC, but your (false) interpretations of them were not. Corticopia 15:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all Corticopia, I never said CA is a "continent", I know for a fact it is not, so save your usual verbose talking. Secondly, I am only speaking about the continent America and the continuous lands it comprises, lands that within the continent rest in different plates, so some geographers used this fact to delimits the subcontinents of America. I'm aware of the "sources", and I know for a fact that Central America is considered a subcontinent, so I guess I'll just add some sources. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No: you're saying it's a subcontinent, which is unsupported by the sources you added, so stop your incessant POV-pushing and sophistry here and elsewhere. We don't care what you 'know', AlexCovarrubiass; all editions (reliably sourced and not) will be scrutinized. Corticopia 18:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Bla bla bla... you and your verbose (and useless) talk. Do you really think somebody pays you attention? I mean, I know YOU pay me attention (Jesus! You even have my contribution page watched and you have admitted it!) That's why I said "I guess I'll just add some sources", period. Fortunately, more editors are now aware of your biased edits, not only me anymore. :) AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Self-aggrandizement and warbling notwithstanding, I see no one coming to your aid. Add your reliable sources and contribute, or STFU and get lost. Corticopia 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animated map of Continental Models

User Corticopia is deleting and moving down the animated map of continental models I just created. This is highly POV, because days ago he was deleting another map created by another user, saying it was a "duplicated" image (but it was not, it showed another continental model, the 5 continents I think). Now, he's doing what he was critizing: adding the static 7 continent image at the top, and movig down the animated continental models map. It is a "duplicated" map.

However, this article is about the "continents", not about the "7 continents model" only, so placing an animated map showing all the continental models is the best NPOV (neutral) practice. The information on Wikipedia must be presented in a netural way, and it must not favor or create the ilusion one POV is the correct or the best.

Based in Wikipedia rules, I'm gonna place the animated map at the top again, as I originally did. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 00:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a great animated map; I've suggested enhancements on your talk page. I have not deleted anything: I have simply moved the animated GIF down to be inline with the content of the article (the lead specifically lists the 7 continents) and listing of the various models below (in the appropriate section). Content must be dealt with equitably (not necessarily equally) -- in English, per the sources listed, the 7-continent model is prevalent (see below). The issues with the other map dealt with inappropriately giving equal weight to the 5-continent model and the erroneous matching of IOC flag colours to continents (the colours represent the five colours in country flags, not one-for-one matching of continents). These are not issues in the animated map and I am not wholly resistant to that image being upfront, though, but issues remain, particularly ...
I see no such advocacy regarding neutrality in either the Spanish or Portuguese Wikipedias regarding this ... but I nonetheless added those references to this article. Nor have reliable sources in English been presented to corroborate this assertion (which I do not necessarily doubt). Again, my edit equilibrates the content, while the animated GIF upfront may eschew it. I will await other editorial opinions before jumping to conclusions; in absentia, I will restore the prior equitable layout. Corticopia 00:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The animated map is netural, and both the map and the continents table could be presented from the 5 continents to the 7, instead it is presented from the 7 continents to the 5. Why? obviously to present first the english-speaking view on the matter, which seems natural to me. The map I created is wholly based on this article, so the 7 continents model is presented first, as it should be. I don't actively contribute to the Wikipedias in Spanish or Portuguese, but if you are so concerned about the "equitably" there, then you should go and edit. There are several english speakers that also speak portuguese or spanish, so I think that the only missing thing here is willigness or desire to do it. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure what you're trying to say regarding 5 to 7, 7 to 5 -- in English, the 7-continent model is prevalent and reliably sourced, while others may not be or are less so. Also note that no reliable sources (save the IOC, if that) have been added to corroborate that point of view in English.
Relatedly, the sequence in the GIF is logical, but my concerns about having it upfront remain. The animated GIF deserves to appear below, to be inline with the listing of multiple models (so as not to confuse). The other rendition -- which includes a non-descript, unlabelled, static image upfront with different but similar colours (e.g., greens for America; consult its key/description) -- IS also neutral, but also more equitable (since it's fairly non-descript, though the caption can be tweaked). As well, I do not actively contribute to the other Wikipedias but can, but that's a digression -- I defer to my prior comments and await added editorial input. Corticopia 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I still have concerns about the undue weight placed on other models in this GIF, as opposed to the prevalent model in English containing 7 or 6 continents (as those sources may note Eurasia, not necessarily America). Relatedly, the 6-continent Eurasia model should appear 2nd in sequence, whereas the other does now.
In any event, I have changed the image caption and added context ... but also reserve the right to re-establish the prior arrangement to maintain an equitable presentation of information in this article. Corticopia 01:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuation

Again, the map is the best NPOV to the issue and no body opposed it, except for Corticopia. He "corrected" it to show "Australia" instead of "Oceania", even if the debate is still not ended (see below). However, I'm willing to accept that for now, as a contention. So I'm reverting the changes he made. Also the table with the color codes for the different continental models is reverted, the color tags give a better understanding to the map. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And you have been reverted -- your arguments are senseless. This discussion has been dormant -- effectively ended -- almost three days ago, with your arguments disproven. The table with colour tags is both redundant (since the coloured, animated map above the table clearly exhibits these colours with labels) and the tags take up unnecessary space horizontally, giving no better understanding of the topic than the current arrangement. If the (unlabelled) map is the "best NPOV", then the unlabelled map (with legend in back-end) upfront conforms to that, and the animated one with labels below further satisfies that and exhibits all models. In addition, you are clearly contradicting yourself, since you claim the map is the "best NPOV" and then you removed it -- it was I who (tweaked and) re-added the animated map and placed it. And until someone else weighs in, that as they say is that. Corticopia 09:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In my revert, the static map is next to the color-coded table, as in many other Wikipedias. The animated labelled map, the best NPOV solution, is well above: in the introductory paragraph. The animated map should remain in the header, since it is the best NPOV solution, it presents ALL the EQUALLY VALID continental models. Since its introduction, nobody oppossed it, only Corticopia. Revert if you want, just keep in mind the 3RR... AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 09:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As you previously said, the other Wikipedias likely lack someone who has the ability or willpower to create a complex, animated map, hence the tags-in-table approach -- I do not oppose the animated map, but it should merely be placed near to the table upon which it is based and which readers can easily compare to. And I'm sure you'll have a field day when trying to demonstrate also that the unlabelled, static map -- which existed for months in the article before you came along -- is anything but NPOV, since it was created by others for the sole purpose of equitably reflecting reckonings of continents around the world (and in different languages). Again, you're self-contradictory: you claim your animated map is NPOV and then YOU completely removed it from the article -- I put it back in. And regarding 3RR: pot, meet kettle. Corticopia 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Contradictory? Never. Remember the animated map had a label that read "Oceania" instead of Australia, an issue still on debate. So, as a point of contention, I deleted the animated map and created a color-coded table (with Australia, not Oceania). So, it is not contradictory. It was an honest try to debate in a good faith. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 09:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Not. You are being contradictory -- you obviously created the map, and then are either unwilling or unable to revise it (replacing Oceania with Australia)? I do have the means, and merely changed the animated map to reflect the table ... which you seem to not only disagree with but revised with Australia. With the updated labelled animated map, the cumbersome colour-coded table really serves no purpose. All points of view are fairly represented (and one can make an argument that the non-7 models are now being given undue weight given the relative number of sources that say 7). So, again, what's the problem? And this discussion has been dormant for almost three days: others can weigh in as before and I have no fundamental problem discussing items ad infinitum when arguments are sensibly made, but I believe this discussion can't go further. Corticopia 09:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The static map is also part of the animated map (the first frame), so it is also redundant now. If you say the color-coded table was a waste of space, then the redundant static map is also a waste of space. What is the reason to have it? It can be just deleted, or replaced with a another picture, for example, the satellite. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 09:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh -- exactly: you are truly being argumentative and not making sense. The unlabelled static map is only the base for the animated, multiframe labelled map, so they're not at all redundant -- you also didn't argue this beforehand when supporting the animated map above and unlabelled one below. We are talking about continents, so coloured maps that clearly exhibit that concept are not at all a waste of space. In its basic form, the table is useful and not redundant (since it clearly organises and exhibits information), but adding colour tags to it is rather pointless since the animated map right above exhibits the colours and concepts (with labels). The satellite map you previously added is redundant and doesn't clearly demonstrate anything, since the composite-Dymaxion map in the article underneath the lead image already does this. Really, this is getting circular. Corticopia 09:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the static map and the colour coded table are the most useful for "encyclopaedic purposes" - they're the most directly useful as a reference, since you don't have to sit around playing with yourself waiting for the gif to change, and can take your time to examine in. The animated GIF enhances "readability" and makes the article funner or something. Even though they're the same, they're not redundant - oddly enough. I actually like this version, although the map next to the table is too small.
Corticopia raises a good point in that the animated GIF givesa undue weight to none-seven continent models, like an article on gravity giving equal time to General Relativity and MOND. But I think the issue is that we're stuck with maps not being able to reflect this well. Maybe we just need more of an effort in the text to say In reality, there are seven continents. Almost everyone accepts this, although there are exceptions. For instance, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Dave Barry noted any idiot with a map can see Europe and Asia are on the same continent. Or whatever. Map wise, animated in the lead, colour coded table with the static map partway down seems best. WilyD 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. OK. For those same reasons, that's why I believe the unlabelled static image should be first. By its very design, it simply (and I believe effectively) reflects various viewpoints -- it shows 7 continents (also reflected in the article lead) but simultaneously exhibits 6 or 5 too (if grouping together areas with like colours), without delving too much into the issue, and has an explanatory caption (e.g., the Barry notion regarding Eurasia). Everything is then expanded upon with the animated GIF/table combo below; note the various continental models are dealt with in the 'Extent' section and elsewhere, also. During this time (and if the reader wasn't playing with oneself in the interim :)), the GIF bown below would've loaded already and, in sequence, matches the table it is adjacent to.
If we again swap the images -- which I do not oppose but don't prefer given the undue weight placed on non-7 notions in the animated GIF when placed upfront -- we can easily arrange items appropriately: i.e., centering the static map just above colour-tagged-or-not table. I believe the colour tags make such a table cumbersome but not as much so if the image is placed atop and not beside the table (which looks fine on my 1680x1050 monitor, but may crash at lower resolutions), but do not oppose including them if the consensus supports it. I hope this makes sense. Corticopia 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand your NPOV concerns, but I think here we have to let readability and functionality reign supreme - that's all. In the end, almost everyone who reads the encyclopaedia already knows there are seven continents anyhow ... WilyD 16:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, readability and functionality are improved with the static map and the color-tagged table together. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
OK: no problem. Remember though that the article is for the benefit of people who may also not know the number and extent of continents. I stil maintain that the other version is just as readable and functional (Cyberjunkie, upon request, is indifferent), but I'll make the changes. Thanks for weighing in. :) Corticopia 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I also don't see anything wrong with the current version, which I feel is superior to Willy's preferred version. From a readability standpoint, I think readers will find the animated map far more useful when situated next to the table. I also don't like the clutter of two images in the intro, which is un-necessary considering one is substantially the same as the another, and Image:Dymaxion map unfolded-no-ocean.png can suffice. --cj | talk 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have made changes that at least three of us somewhat agree on: animated upfront, static below, colour-tagged table. Cyberjunkie: I also like the animated map and table in close proximity below, but the static and Dymaxion maps in place (i.e., I believe none are redundant, as I've maintained throughout; I take issue more with the order and flow of content). So, in that case, I would propose to merely move the Dymaxion map down to a lower section, 2nd from top, where the continuity and extent of continents is dealt with ... and have only one image upfront (static map preferred, but animated possible) and the other down below. If animated below (preferred), no colour tags; if static below, colour tags (?) Thoughts? Corticopia 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the animated map upfront, static map and color-tagged table, below. I have no preference for the Dymaxion map. I oppose using the animated map plus the simple table: animated map is only to present the different models, static map and color-coded table are better to understand and efficiently compare the models. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Wily, of course I agree with you in almost all of what you said. The static map and the color-coded table are a good solution since you can easily read it and, as you said, not to wait for the animated map to change. Since my first introduction of color-coded table, I placed the static map centered above the table, check the edit history [12]. About the animated map, I created it in order to present all of the continental models in a very, and I believe the best, NPOV way. The only thing I don't agree with you is that of "it gives the other models an undue weight". Those models may not be common in some countries, but they are equally valid and have scientific bases. I don't think that presenting, for example, the 6 or 5 continents models is giving it undue weight, since all of Latin America and parts of Europe use it, so a considerable amount of human beings also uses this model. NPOV policy says that facts must not be presented in a way suggesting some POV as being the truth and that all the POV are to be presented, not only the most popular one. I found an interesting article about the continents. According to it, the 5 continents model was the most common even in the United States, until World War II, when its foreign politics changed [13]. Well, however, I'm glad we agree with the layout the page should have. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: you agree, yet you provide a link to the version which rather contradicts your stance, with a horrid (and redundant) satellite composite and just the static map below. Many versions are at play, though I believe I crafted the version which was preferred and noted above (animated map upfront, static map below next to colour-tagged table, later tweaked), you later reverted to it. Not all things are equal. Anyhow ... Corticopia 14:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The link is for Wily to see that I supported the idea of the static map centered above the table since my first edit. Actually, my first edit had the animated map in the header as you can see here, but minutes later, as I already have expressed, I decided to remove it because it said "Oceania" and we had a debate going on at the moment. So I created that version Wily agrees with, but that's not important.
  • 01:30, 28 March 2007 AlexCovarrubias (→Number of continents - Adding colored map with color codes for each continental model)
  • 01:33, 28 March 2007 AlexCovarrubias (Satellite composed image of the continents)
However, I agree with Wily because his proposed layout is exactly the one I had in mind initially. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 15:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Had in mind? OK: you supported it, and then changed your mind, which is not atypical (and have since changed the link) And you have clearly (confusingly) removed the static map on more than one occasion ... Again, not all things are equal: the proposed version was arrived at through incremental edits. Yes: it is 'not important' who originated what, but your waffling behaviour is perplexing. Anyhow ... Corticopia 15:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I never changed my mind about what I originally wanted for the article. I always wanted the same layout Wily agrees with. It is just that, in a disputed page, you can't always edit the way you want. So I thought that removing the animated map from the lead, that said "Oceania", was a good edit to show willigness to debate. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Noted. Corticopia 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oceania not the same as Australia

FACTS

The 5 continents model (mainly used in Latin America, Spain, Italy and other parts of Europe) considers the following as continents: America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania.

The current table of continental models, lists "Australia" in the 5 contients model, which is not only inaccurate, but totally wrong. In the 5 continents model, the term used is Oceania.

Australia and Oceania are different, not symnetrical concepts:

  • Australia (continent): comprises Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.
  • Oceania: comprises Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and "a set of islands that extends in the Pacific, and it is divided in 4 large sectors: Australasia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia". (Océano Uno, Diccionario Enciclopédico y Atlas Mundial, page 1755, ISBN 84-494-0188-7)

I edited the article several times to add "Oceania" in the 5 continents model only, but user Corticopia kept reverting it. The article mentions in a small note that "Oceania" may be used instead of Australia, but that is not accurate, because (again), those are not symmetrical terms and comprise different lands.

WHAT TO DO

Both terms comprise a different territory, then the most logical and accurate (not to mention simple) solution is to include Oceania, the term actually used in that continental model. You can check es:Oceania and pt:Oceania to see what I am talking about (already included as references in the "explanatory" note)

REFERENCES
Sources defining Oceania as a continent

However, I also saw a reference to the Atlas of Canada [17], but I don't know how often "Oceania" is used instead of "Australia" in the english speaking world. What I know for a fact and will add the references, is that "Australia" is never used in the 5 continents model.

According to Corticopia, the reason for his reverts was the "lack of sources". Now that I have a source, I guess he will stop reverting. I understand I didn't initially provide a source, but I have been contributing with Wikipedia for more than a year, and I wouldn't edit an article to introduce false information, where is the Assume Good Faith policy? However, as I said, I have a source now. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. Firstly, Australia includes all of the island of New Guinea, as well as smaller islands surrounding it. Secondly, there are 5 continent models which name Australia; it is not exclusive to Oceania.--cj | talk 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
CJ, I have never seen an article about the 5 continents naming Australia instead of Oceania. I guess it is because both areas comprise different territories. However, would you mind providing a source please? The 5 continents model is used primarily in Latin America, Spain, Portugual and other parts of Europe. I have read about it in spanish and portugues, and I have never seen "Australia" instead of Oceania. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Alex, the problem is that this makes the table needlessly confusing. Australia is the usual English word for the continent, Oceania is an occasionally used synonym - so Australia is generally preferable. Labelling an identical region with different names to reflect the customs of the different models just makes the table needlessly confusing, because it makes it harder to compare the models - the essential reason the table exists. WilyD 04:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
But you are entirely ignoring the fact that the continental concepts of Australia and Oceania are not the same. Both terms comprise different areas, they are not synonims. According to the article Australia (continent) and the Atlas of Canada (for example) [18], they are not synonims, because they comprise different lands. Also, this is not a matter of what "term" is used in "what" language, but about accuracy: simply Australia is not the same as Oceania. They are both treated separately, both concepts have their own article, both continents are included in the template continents of the world. As you said, the table is to compare the models, and certainly Australia and Oceania are comparable terms, with the difference that the latter comprises a larger territory. They are comparable terms, very similar, but not synonims that justifies the replacement of one for another. Please note that I am just talking about the 5 continents model. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 05:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source that explicitly says Australia the continent and Oceania are not the same? As far as I can tell, every continent name applies to an area that isn't always defined the same way - the Atlas of Canada is a great example because it uses a non-standard definition of Europe (it doesn't include any of Kazakhstan in Europe, while the European Community and most other sources do) .... WilyD 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Wily, now you're being irrational. If a source defines Australia as comprising a determined territory and Oceania a different one, then it is logical that they are not the same. It is like saying apples and oranges may be the same thing if no source explicitly say they are not. The definition of each term determines if they are/are not the same. In any case, you'd also need to provide a source indicating they are the same, if the sources I provide defines them as different concepts. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Randomly:

  1. [19] Australia includes the Pacific Islands but not New Guinea
  2. [20] Australia includes the Pacific Islands and half of New Guinea
  3. [21] Australia includes the Pacific Islands and half of New Guinea
  4. [22] Australia includes the Pacific Islands and half of New Guinea
  5. [23] Oceania includes the Pacific Islands and half of New Guinea (note this matches a common definition for Australia)
  6. [24] Australia includes the Pacific Islands but none of New Guinea
  7. [25] Oceania includes the Pacific Islands and all of New Guinea
  8. [26] Australia includes the Pacific Islands and all of New Guinea (identical to the above Oceania
  9. [27] Oceania includes the Pacific Islands and none of New Guinea
  10. [28] Australia includes the Pacific Islands and all of New Guinea
  11. [29] Oceania includes the Pacific Islands and half of New Guinea

Conclusion Australia and Oceania both invariably include Australia (country), New Zealand and the Pacific Islands in normal usage. The status of of New Guinea (and a few other islands of Indonesia) is not well defined, both Australia and Oceania may include some, all or none of New Guinea. Alex, if you're curious about what's going on, I can tell you (though I'm not sure I'd ever be able to source it). Oceania is just a politically correct alternative to Australia - the words have identical meaning as continents - Australia is obviously overloaded. WilyD 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think about those maps about Australia. I've seen definitions about Australia that doesn't include the Pacific Islands and yet colored them in the map as part of the continent. Seems like a common issue. For example, Encarta [30] when you look for Australia continent, they don't mention the islands and yet color them in the "continents" map. Another of your sources "Mapsofworld.com", color the Pacific island and don't include them in the "Australia Continent Political Map" [31] and also notable, the category is called "Australia and Oceania" [32]. Other example is "Nationsonline.org", that in fact uses the 5 continents including Oceania, and then uses it as a synonim of Australia, but in the list of countries uses the traditional subdivision of Oceania. The biggest problem is the source "Infomine.com", that is clearly not talking about continents, but about their own divisions of whatever they are, at least that you believe Chile, Brasil, UK, Turkey and China are the new names of new continents. However, Wily, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one that also ask for reliable sources? I think those sites (except Encarta.com) don't seem to fall in the category of reliable sources (Quoting "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand"). I believe it would be better to see descriptions/definitions (as you asked me) of Australia as a continent from reputable sources, not only maps. And again, I'm not trying to change the whole table, I'm only adding Oceania in the model whose sources indicate it. After all, it is a comparative table, and certainly Oceania and Australia are comparable terms, almost comprising the same territory, but definitely not the same (for what we've seen until now). AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are some reputable references: (excluding Wikipedia) three note Australia as a continent, one notes Australasia (Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea).
And, yet you've provided four to substantiate your argument: one of which (CIA) definitely does NOT indicate Oceania is a continent (only that Australia is part of Oceania, matching other common reckonings per WilyD), another which may also be of limited authority (WorldAtlas), and two in Spanish. As for Encarta, FWIW, the following is revealed when translating the Spanish 'Australia' article
  • Australia (nombre oficial, Commonwealth of Australia, Australia), Estado de Oceanía situado al sureste de Asia, entre los océanos Índico, al oeste y sur, y Pacífico, al este. La isla de Australia forma, junto con la vecina de Tasmania, la Commonwealth de Australia .... Esta gran isla continental limita con varios mares que constituyen brazos de los grandes océanos antes mencionados ...
into English:
  • Australia (official name, Commowealth of Australia), state of Oceanía located southeast of Asia, between the Indian Oceans, to the west and the south, and Pacific, to the east. The island of Australia forms, with neighbouring Tasmania, the Commonwealth of Australia .... This great continental island is bounded by several seas and constituent arms of the great oceans mentioned earlier ...
And regarding the Spanish references/Latin American model: before you try to point out what may appear obvious from Encarta et al., note that Oceanía translates not to the (presumably) equivalent "Oceania" -- as you maintain -- but to "The Australian Continent": try it and again.
So, AC, your original and subsequent arguments -- that Oceanía equals Oceania but not Australia -- are not only moot but wrong too, and the proposed table edits are subjective and inaccurate. (Relatedly, the animated maps should change too; I'll do this shortly.) I otherwise defer to my prior arguments and that, as they say, is that. So, how do you like 'em ... apples? Corticopia 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, don't confuse the things, because I have never said or tried to prove "Australia is not a continent", so a source reckoning Australia as one of the continents is irrelevant: we all know Australia is the name of a continent in english. More importantly, those sources fail to describe the territories comprised by Australia (as a continent). Second, just to remind you (and the possible readers) that I'm not suggesting to switch from Australia to Oceania in the table, but only in the model it is explicitly noted by the source (5 continents).
Also, a translation to prove "Oceania equals Australia" is just subjective and doubious, since translations are about the usage of the terms or as explaing them so the people can understand, they don't have to pay attention to the scientific differences that might exist. It is perfectly understandable that translation machine uses "Australian continent" instead of Oceania (from Spanish to English), since it is most commonly used. But let's go beyond. What if we translate "the Australian Continent" from English to Spanish? It translates it as "el continente Australiano". And what if we translate "Oceania" from English to Spanish? It simply translates it as "Oceanía" (with an accent in the i). But don't belive me, go Try it! and Try it!. As everybody can see, using a translation machine to "prove" one term is exactly the same as the other is not "only moot and subjective but wrong". If I say "that car's so cool" in english, no one will ever translate it as "el carro está muy frío", but instead as "ese coche está chido" in Mexican spanish or "ese auto está chévere" in Venezuelan spanish.
However, the best practice is we must follow the scientific definition of each term. So far, the sources indicate Oceania is a different thing from Australia as a continent, since both comprise different territories. You both have failed to provide a reliable source that can show the territories comprised by Australia are the same comprised by Oceania (according to your argumentation). AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The absolutely do not. They indicate that Australia and Oceania have imprecise and unagreed upon definitions, but for any instance of a definition of Oceania, you can find someone who defines the same region as Australia, and for any definition of Australia, you can find someone calling the same area Oceania. Does the fact that I could find three different definitions of Oceania mean there are really 3 different seven continent models? Or six different ones given that Panama south of the canal is variably included in either North America or South America? And so on? No - this isn't the case. Our available source do not show a difference between Australia and Oceania - one source for Oceania may disagree with another source for Australia, but one source for Oceania may disagree with another source for Oceania - which means the first point is inconclusive. WilyD 14:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well Wily, let's move on, if you insist Australia and Oceania are sometimes described as comprising the same territory, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide reliable sources describing the Australian Contient territory that way. So far, I haven't seen such sources. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh-huh. The premise of your original argument has been proven to be moot -- if not confusing, now circular, and senseless -- and part of an attempt to eschew content in favour of YOUR (and yours alone) point of view regarding content, corroborated by few if no reliable sources. Remember: denial is in the continent coloured yellow in the maps -- the burden of proof is on you. And significantly reframing the article to suit your viewpoint -- as was recently done in the middle of this discussion (which will be judiciously corrected) -- doesn't change that and is objectionable. Moreover, your sense of entitlement or possession regarding content -- which, when in Wikipedia, doesn't belong to you and can be edited at will -- is laughable. Corticopia 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Proved?. That's hasty. I don't see any reliable source indicating or describing the Australian Continent as comprising the same territory of Oceania. If you're both so sure about it, then it shouldn't be that hard to source it. And as usual, your verbose talk trying to give the wrong impression. The changes I made were only: deletion of the animated map I created and replacing it with a satellite composed image of the continents from NASA. I Added back the old static colored-map, and added color tags to the already existent comparative table of continental models. Both changes where inspired in the article in German and French that are very NPOV, oh and I also implemented the same changes in the Spanish Wikipedia. So I didn't "significantly reframed" anything. Thanks God people can check the history of the article and corroborate this [33]. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're looking for. If you want to show that Oceania is defined differently than Australia is defined, clearly you're boned, for that's simply not the case. For any definition of the continent of Oceania, I can easily find a definition of the continent of Australia that includes the identical pieces of land. If you want me to provide a reference that says Oceania is another name for Australia I may be able to, but like Dogs are not a kind of pudding this is a hard statement to source because its so obvious that people rarely articulate it. WilyD 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No Wily, I think sources indicating the territory comprised by Australia are enough, so we can compare it with the one indicated for Oceania. It is absolutely not necessary to find a source that explicitly say "Australia is the same as Oceania". I see your point. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm a retard. I found the first google hit is the World Atlas which treats them as synonyms. [34] - Jeez, I knew it was true and obvious, but I thought it'd be more work than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
Hasty? This circular and pointless discussion -- which you initiated -- has already gone on for far too long. You first initiate a discussion without a clear aim and despite equitable content in the article covering various points of view (repeatedly stated), and then present sources to back your subjective edits. When you fail to compel (through misinterpretation of source matter and/or fallacious arguments), you then reframe the article when you can't compel or prove your point and then bounceback requests for sources to protract the discussion -- a number of sources have already been provided to corroborate our positions and reasoning (others already in the article), which needn't agree with yours. You initiated this discussion, and unless someone else objects or something new arises, I am ending it (at least my involvement in it). Corticopia 19:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
My objective is and always have been clear, read the first message under the line "What to do". Sure you can exclude yourself from the discussion if that's what you want, but you can certainly not "end" it. I'll just ignore your verbose and sometimes false talk (reframing info? see the message above [35]) from now on (unless they are about sources). AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Then, as now, your objective and arguments are unclear and exasperating and edits questionable. After all: if one doesn't feed a fire, it dies out. Corticopia 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to make this clear to you Alex - I reject Rationallity where it conflicts with Empiricism. Turns out Wikipedia does to - empirical facts are easy to attribute. Our own reasoning isn't. WilyD 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons why you were reverted -- otherwise, I agree with WilyD. Even in English, the notions of Oceania and Australia (continent, country, or otherwise) are not symmetrical ones, so the original argument regarding this particular model is rather moot. The former is generally used to refer to the wider region usu. including Australia (and the Océano Uno ref doesn't seem to indicate anything different, just as the CIA Fact Book reference merely states that Australia is just in Oceania without noting it's a continent); it is also infrequently used to refer to one of the 7 continents in English (e.g., Atlas of Canada). Anyhow, various points of view about this are clearly accommodated for in the 'Extent' section (which also notes Australasia) and in the note down below the table. Said table edits needlessly confuse the issue. And (previously) no reliable sources were provided to corroborate these assertions, despite repeated requests. (Please note I added links to the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias, so you know what they say about making erroneous assumptions.) So, until a consensus and sources support these subjective edits, edits will be made to equilibrate or correct for content in this article and elsewhere. Corticopia 13:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you should read better, because I'm not proposing changing the concept of Australia in all the models, just in the 5 continents model. As you said, Australia and Oceania are not symmetrical terms (which is also my point) so they cannot be used one instead of another. The source I provide clearly indicate Oceania for the 5 continents models and since Australia comprises a smaller area (as you said, Australia is part of the wider region of Oceania), then it should be changed in order to preserve accuracy. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I and others have read you fine -- you seem to not understand the point of a comparative table, nor do you seem to grasp that these inequities of opinions are already accommodated for elsewhere in the article ... as stated previously how many times? Corticopia 13:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As well, another related issue, given recent edits (see above): if a consensus does support labelling this model as Oceania, then the animated GIF must be moved next to the table below, with the original static, unlabelled map (which actually has a legend, indicating Australia/Oceania) in its place. Otherwise, this gives undue weight to models rather unsourced and uncommmon in English. The colours provide for various points of view already, and should promote clarity since a visitor can easily match the coloured model with the table (the caption can remain unchanged). Anyhow ...Corticopia 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a whole different issue, with a separate debate. However, the animated map can always be mofified, I'm en expert in that :) AlexCov ( Let's talk! )06:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oceania is the same as Australia

  1. [36]
  2. [37]
  3. [38]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WilyD (talk • contribs).

Are those really WP:reliable sources? Because in other cases I've been told they are not, and following the description of reliable sources in the WP policy article, they don't seem to be. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't spend a ton of time checking them out. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, per WP:RS, but extremely unspectacular claims don't require particularly good sources. As I guessed earlier, straightforward statements are often the hardest to source. Above, I provided a bunch of definitions for the areas at random, which showed the same properties, as far as I could tell. WilyD 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Wily, there is no need to provide extraordinary sources. We just need a reliable source that defines Australia's territory. Then we can compare it with the territory of Oceania. As I said above, there's no need to find a source that explicitly say Aus = Oceania. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Different sources give different definitions in both cases. My earlier list above shows complete overlap between the two for all definitions - if you don't like a source, fine, but I'm sure we can work out something - the gimage search was just the easiest way to find continent definitions. WilyD 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EContinent_905e.html"