Talk:List of island countries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


/Borderless Countries Talk Archive1

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Australia

Australia is obviously an island, as it is a "landmass surrounded by water" as per the Concise Oxford Dictionary definition. It is also obviously a continent. It is commonly referred to as an "island continent". This usage is widespread and international. A Google search [1] for "island continent" Australia returns 26,000 results.--Gene_poole 23:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

North America is also an island by the OED definition. Is Canada thus an island country? - SimonP 03:16, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Can you still drive there from the US?--Gene_poole 03:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You can drive from Ireland to the UK. - SimonP 05:31, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Ireland is rightly noted as a disputed list inclusion, as it currently consists of 2 political entities sharing a single island. Australia is a single political entity occupying multiple islands. As the article introduction states: This is a list of countries which are made up of just islands. This means that they are either a single island or a group of islands. Canada obviously fulfills neither criteria. --Gene_poole 06:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If "landmass surrounded by water" is the definition of island, that covers every landmass on Earth. If an island is something capable of being circumnavigated, that also covers every landmass-- provided you have a powerful enough icebreaker. These definitions are, therefore, pretty useless, as it has been decided that some landmasses are islands, but continents. Gene Poole, can you explain why what has been established on island, list of islands by area, and list of islands by population--specifically, that Australia is a continent--must be rehashed here? --Yath 08:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The current unambiguous intent of this article is to list political entities that are the sole or primary occupiers of detatched, circumnavigable landmasses. Australia is one such, and as the only example of an island that is also a continent as well as a state it belongs here. --Gene_poole 08:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The trouble remains, that Australia is not an island. Or were you referring to the fact that Australia occupies all of Tasmania, and is therefore an island nation? That would make Greece, Italy, France, and any number of additional nations eligible for the list. Looks like the article needs an Also attached to a continent section. --Yath 09:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Australia the state comprises multiple islands, the biggest of which is a continental landmass, and I see no justification for excluding it from this list on the basis of that this represents a unique conjunction of taxonomic criteria - namely that it is an "island continent", a fact of which all Australian schoolchildren have been aprised for over a century.--Gene_poole 09:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the question of Australia, i'm indifferent either way. But check out Afro-Eurasia in the 4-continent model. --Kvasir (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greenland, Channel Islands (Jersey and Guersey), Falkland Islands, and many others

Should Greenland, Channel Islands (Jersey and Guersey), Falkland Islands, US Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, etc. be added to List_of_island_nations#Autonomous_or_semi-autonomous, or to (a) new category(ies)? --18:18, December 9, 2004, UTC

[edit] "Shares one or more of its islands with another state"

Seems like for Brunei, Domican Republic, Haiti, etc., it's not quite right to call "its island(s)". The major parts of these countries do not occupy the entire island.--18:30, December 9, 2004, UTC

[edit] Bordered borderless island countries?

Now we can see from the introduction and the definition of an island country that they do not have land borders. Yet I see a few entries which clearly have them:

At the same time, I notice the exclusion of Saint Martin and the Netherlands Antilles who shares the island of Saint Martin. Surely all of these should be removed since they fail to meet the basic critieria of a true island nation?--Huaiwei 10:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate sublist for the above nations. Sqwerty 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Under what category then? "Half island nations"?--Huaiwei 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "Shared island nations?" Sqwerty 19:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't United Kingdom and Indonesia island countries? There are many sources on the Internet referring them as island countries or island nations. The governments consider themselves as such. Indonesia also calls itself the largest archipelagic state. Sharing a land border with another country or not is another concept not related to their natural geography as islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.218.109 (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. I came to this page via a link and it has at the top "Redirected from Borderless countries", so it was clearly called that at some point. This would be a much more sensible title still, especially as this page suggests one also sees the 'Island country' article. This would solve all the problems - the U.K. would be a non-borderless island nation and Australia would be a borderless non-island nation. (It makes no sense to say that a continent can be an island - they are just landmasses of different sizes. And it also makes no sense to give as evidence that Australia is an island that that is what Australian schoolchildren are taught and what the Australian government states on websites. Politicians are not in charge of geography.) Salopian (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is now almost the same topic as Contradiction below, so I'll post my response there. Certes (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree, and just came up here to check that I didn't need to reply to anything else. Let's move the whole discussion there from this point. Salopian (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


You can clearly see up there that Brunei, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, and Indonesia are listed up there. The island Borneo is partly Indonesian (mostly, actually), but there is also a Malaysian part and Brunei is there as well. Meaning they all have land borders (Indonesia with Malaysia and Brunei with Malaysia). And the island New Guinea is divided into the Indonesian province of Papua and West Papua and the country Papua New Guinea. And this also applies to the the island of Timor, where half of the island is an independent country, East Timor, and the other half is the Indonesian province of West Timor. Oh, and of course, the United Kingdom has a border with Ireland. Maybe this solves the problem? chika (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bahrain

Is Bahrain truly borderless? What about the artificial island to support the King Fahd Causeway. Jamie|C 14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I put up a note. But a user insists to remove it. 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.45.68 (talk)

[edit] Cyprus

Isn't Cyprus bordered with the SBAs of the United Kingdom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.45.55 (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus is, more importantly, bordered by a gigantic concrete and barbed-wire wall manned by tens of thousands of Turkish soldiers. Leushenko (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Island country defines the term as "a country without mainland territory", while this similarly named article defines it as "a country without land borders". We should either agree on one definition (if there is WP:RS support to do so) or acknowledge that there are two conflicting definitions (if there is WP:RS support to do so). -- Jao (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this topic is full of contradictions. I think it is intrinsically difficult rather than poorly covered by WP, and there is no rigorous definition that will please everybody or even most people. I think we have to use "not a continent" in our definition of island. Otherwise it is hard to include, say, the Republic of Ireland without including all countries with a coastline. Can we use the definition "countries not situated on the mainland of a continent", or would that be WP:OR, or would we want to include countries with continental territory but a significant island presence like Equatorial Guinea? Certes (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be two articles, one called 'Borderless nation(s)' and one called 'Island nation(s)' (with or without the plural as deemed best). The former would be based on the list here (including Australia), plus any relevant information from the other article, and the latter would be a reworking of the other article plus a relevant list (excluding Australia). There is no need to have the lists separate from the main articles. The 'Borderless' article would need to define that it means without *land* borders, but that would not be problematic. Salopian (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree fully with Salopian's sentiment. -- Jao (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Me too, good idea. Can we agree definitions of these categories? I agree with Salopian that borderless means 'having no land borders'. I suggest that island [nation] means 'having no part on any continent'. We then need to define continent: I think Australia qualifies and we can ignore Antarctica because it has no nations. Do we need to consider any special cases where a nation consisting of large island(s) and a small foothold on some continent is regarded as an island nation in practical terms - the UK in Gibraltar, perhaps? Certes (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
To be more rigorous, island [nation] means 'having no part on the mainland of any continent as defined in Continent', which makes Australia clearly not an island nation. Certes (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Australia is an island-continent - a fact which is taught to schoolchildren to the present day. Suggesting that it should not be on this list borders on the idiotic. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As I've mentioned further up, Australian schoolchildren being taught something is not intrinsic evidence of anything other than Australian school policy. Wikipedia (Largest islands) addresses this issue and says that for the purposes here Australia is considered a continent. It makes no sense to say that a landmass can be a continent and an island. They are just landmasses of different sizes - the only issue is where the dividing line should be. (We might as well start saying that such-and-such a place is the only islet-island in the world!) If need be, the island nations page could have something like "For the purposes here, Australia is deemed to be a continent - see 'Borderless nations'." Another way to think of it is if the separate states were independent, would they be considered island nations in the way that Ireland or Brunei can be? I don't think so.
Gibraltar is not a problem since it is a territory rather than part of the U.K. However, it is a good point that there are other cases that would need to be decided, such as Malaysia. My feeling, though, is that those shouldn't count. Perhaps any country with at least 50% of its area on islands could be mentioned as an aside of some kind. (I don't know the percentage of Malaysia that's on Borneo, but it looks like just over half.) I also think it should specifically be 'nations' or at least 'countries' rather than 'states', i.e. autonomous areas like Greenland should count. I tend to think of this as more independent than e.g. Nunavut, but that would need to be checked out. Salopian (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Avoiding the word nation is a good idea because it is ambiguous and usually means something completely non-territorial. (I think Americans use it to mean "country" more than others, though.) Country is what we normally use for lists such as this one. For what entities to include and how, we should probably simply conform to the decisions on List of countries. -- Jao (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer country over nation here too, though I'm finding it harder to express my reasons. I used nation above simply because I'd got the impression that everyone else here did. Certes (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
'Countries' should certainly be used if we restrict it to totally independent states (as 'states' would be too formal and is indeed not used in equivalent articles). I specifically favoured 'nations' because of the wiggle room it would allow for very but not wholly independent entities (of the Greenland type that are little more than nominally attached to other entities). However, 'countries' also allows this wiggle room, if somewhat less so. I'd be happy enough, though, to not include Greenland in the main lists, but if so it would certainly warrant a mention.
I was thinking, though. Instead of just borderless countries, perhaps a larger list *may* be warranted, of countries with 0, 1, 2, 3 etc. borders. I don't know whether this is covered by Wikipedia. It would be a bit pedantic in a way, but I'd actually be interested in seeing the results. Salopian (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, as long as we have List of flags by number of colors – why not? -- Jao (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I hadn't seen that link before. It made me realise that I made an error in a geography trivia book I wrote a few years ago! Yep, it's the kind of thing I meant. The 'borderless' list after all doesn't really need any introductory text (except to differentiate whether it counts as touching the same country twice as two borders or one). Salopian (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is more useful to list "countries bordering 0, 1... other countries", i.e. count touching the same country twice as one border. This avoids problems at places like Baarle. Certes (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there already such a list? 15:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There were in fact two separate list, one for all island countries including the UK, Indonesia, Ireland, etc., and the other listing only those occupies all of their islands and have no land border. It was until last summer (see talk page and edit history of List of borderless countries, List of island countries and Island country) that Silktork, SchmuckyTheCat and Huaiwei took up their drive to merge the two lists and mix the two concepts up. (It is indeed confusing to see "For a broader definition, including countries that share an island, see Island country." in the current state of this article.) 15:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it strange that a group of wikipedians here seems to be discussing definitions with nally a citation to base their comments on?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In what sense? The subject here (other than what is an island and what is a continent, which we have adequately covered by citing the precedent made elsewhere in Wikipedia) is not really something that needs citations. Sure, a decision would be needed on whether to count multiple borders between the same two countries but that is unarguably a subjective choice. No other source can provide a definitive answer. I've stated that it would need to be checked out which technically non-independent countries should be included - that doesn't need to be researched now. Similarly, any aside about countries with continental land can only be subjective. I cannot imagine what you mean that needs citations in this discussion. Salopian (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In every possible sense as far as Wikipedia:Verifiability is concerned. Citing a precedent in wikipedia (which I presume means citing a preceeding version of wikipedia) is not acceptable. If there are no realiable sources to support any thesis, then this article shall not exist. Kindly be affray with basic wikipedia guidelines before assuming non-compliance is acceptable.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two stages in producing a list: defining the inclusion criterion, and working out which candidates meet it. Are we confusing them?

  • For the first stage, if we had found some generally accepted definition then I would expect us to use and cite it, but we have not. Our options, then, are to reach a consensus on our own criterion, making clear that it is not a universal standard, or to abandon the project. My personal opinion is that we should continue.
  • For the second stage (which countries to include), I hope most decisions will be so obvious that they need no more citation than "1 + 2 = 3" would. Each country where there is any scope for argument will need citations, but on matters of fact relative to the criterion (such as how many square km it occupies on some land mass), not on whether it is an "island country" by someone else's definition.

Certes (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What about looking for citation for each of the island countries in the list, somewhat like what the community had done above for the case of Australia (#Australia)? In my opinion countries belong to groups A, B and D are all island countries (#Google). Cuba may argurably belong to group B according to some definitions because of the Guantanamo Bay; while Indonesia fits into group B, too, for sharing one of its islands with Papua New Guinea, another with East Timor, and a third one with Malaysia and Brunei. 12:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
With regards to your comments on the first stage, attempting to form "our own criterion" is absolutely forbiddin in wikipedia, and I will certainly bring this issue up for delibration by wider community should any attempt be made in this direction. Energy should be spent towards looking for definitions from reputable sources, and not attempting to formulate original definitions. Second, without a sourced definition, you cannot build a list of items independent of that. There is no such thing as any information being "obvious to the point of being exempt from WP:V. Your suggestions directly violate two official policies of wikipedia, and will certainly not be acceptable.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a problem for many of our lists. List of cities by surface area, List of countries by length of coastline and List of countries by compactness come to mind as a few of the more floating-in-thin-air ones. -- Jao (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Amongst the three, the only article which may pass the test is List of countries by length of coastline, since it uses data from the CIA World Factbook. The extensive introduction attepting to fault CIA's data seems kinda off, thou. Yes this problem can be easily found, even in List of countries, where there is endless wikiwarring on just what a country is, resulting in constant bickering over the inclusion or exclusion of entries. This article can very well go down that path if not for the fact that it currently attracts less widespread attention. That said, I don't think comparisons with other articles with similar problems would make this article any more acceptable. We should strive to rid wikipedia of all these problems together instead.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly agree with that, and if the discussion held here only proves that this list should go into WP:AFD, then so be it. (I don't agree that the coastline introduction is off, though. There is no evidence that the CIAWF people haven't just collected information from various sources, which may well have been measured at different scales. And even if they have measured everything themselves, using only one scale, the numbers are really kind of pointless unless we know the magnitude of that scale.) -- Jao (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Do others agree with Huaiwei's points above and feel that this article's very existence violates WP policies? If so then perhaps the page should be a candidate for WP:AfD, though I'll be sure to save a copy for personal use first (and perhaps submit it to another GDFL-compliant site with a more liberal regime). This article seems to have at least as much merit as most of the 147 lists named at Category:Lists of islands. They do not even attempt a definition of criteria, and provide sources only for debatable entries (no citation is given to prove that Great Britain is an island of Europe), so should they be considered for deletion too? I hope this suggestion does not offend anyone: I am trying to be helpful here rather than be sarcastic or make a point. Certes (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macau

I'm removing Macau from the list. Unlike HK, the peninsula portion has been part of the territory since the establishment of the portuguese colony. YES the peninsula is attached to the Chinese mainland. Unless HK is considered an island country, macau shouldn't be either. --Kvasir (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough: there's no qualitative difference under the current inclusion criteria. However, I think Macau and not Hong Kong would qualify under the "50% on islands" proposal above. Certes (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
From where is the "50% on islands" criterion sourced from?--Huaiwei (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to Salopian's suggestion above. I have seen no sources for it, and I think it's intended as a possible guideline rather than verifiable content. I did not mean to imply that "50% on islands" was an accepted criterion at WP or elsewhere. Certes (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. As I noted above, any criteria without supporting sources simply cannot be adopted in a wikipedia article, especially when it is related to a definition which remains unsourced.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Macau peninsula is located on an island separated from the continent by some distributaries of the Pearl River. Such islands are common among river deltas which rivers have many mouths. Compare with those islands within the Ganges Delta. 12:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.45.68 (talk)
Ah. Kindly name the "island" from which the Macau peninsula extends from then?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This part of the discussion has been removed a few times, which I think is a little extreme. The IP certainly has something of a case, as the area composing the eastern parts of Zhongshan and Zhuhai is surrounded by water, but just like Huaiwei, I have never heard that area being called an island. I guess it all comes down to whether all water-surrounded landmasses in a delta should count as islands or not, and I think (without having examined the matter further, mind you) that this is an example of "not". (Living in a delta myself, I'm confused by these matters on a daily basis.) -- Jao (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The IP editor is a banned user (User:Instantnood) who was banned partly for these endless games of pedantic semantics. Responding to him will result in twisting the question a different way, which you will answer in the same way, and etc. WP:RBI. Macau is partially on a peninsula on an island that is part of another Chinese province. It doesn't belong here under any circumstance. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I'm not sure I'm following. If that area is an island, then Macau is entirely located on islands, thus an island country (for at least one definition of the term). It still wouldn't be a borderless country, of course. I had missed the fact that the IP was a banned user, though; feel free to remove the discussion again for that reason, if that is proper procedure. -- Jao (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Macau could be said to lack land borders if its boundary is all underwater, albeit shallow river water. But we must stop somewhere before the Kiel canal makes Denmark an island country. (Revert this comment with the rest if it smells like troll food.) Certes (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Macau SAR has a land border with Guandong province. That border is on a shared island, a fairly large one in the Pearl River Delta. Macau has a tenuous grasp on the term "country" and is not an island. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Yep I agree according to the "borderless" definition, Macau is not borderless. Yet have people here ever agreed that island countries must be borderless? Are Indonesia and the Netherlands Antilles island countries? 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the land border is 340m long (from CIA world fact book, link could be found following Macau's own page) It could only get longer if they have filled in the little ditch/river/marsh west of the land border that separates the peninsula from the Mainland. This undated google satellite image shows the land border structures and you can see at one spot along the waterish feacture they have started to fill it in. --Kvasir (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Canals won't make the Iberian Peninsula and southwestern France, or Jutland and northern Germany islands. However some of the outcomes of artificial waterways are considered artificial islands. The district of Dithmarschen and Donauinsel are such examples. But then the island where Macau peninsula is located is not an artifical island. The waterways around it are natural ones, and may perhaps be wider than the waterways of the Klarälven around Hammarö. 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Who is Instantnood? Why you keep undoing my edits? 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.45.68 (talk)
Well if every kind of water feature counts, I would be living on an island in an archepalago too, since there is a drain around my apartment block, as is in the case in thousands of blocks around mine! That this "island" has no name already says alot on its relevance as an established geographic feature. I noticed some maps actually not depicting the said area as being completely enclosed by water features. This suggests that the purported "island" is not a well established geographic feature. Compare this with that of the Chongming Island in the Yangtze River Delta, where established delta islands are actually named.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's amusing to learn how archipelagoes can be created. But in that case, in your country fields enclosed by ditches are artificial islets too. 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is an island as long as Manhattan is an island. Burgerist (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That's because Harlem "River" is a tidal strait. --Kvasir (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it a distributary of Hudson River too? Lower streches of almost all rivers and distributaries are probably somewhat tidal. This is especially true for those with big deltas. Burgerist (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Harlem River is labelled as a tidal strait because of the flow reversal nature over its entire length. The point is we have no evidence of this unnamed Xijiang distributary exhibits tidal behaviour for its entire length. There also appears to be distributaries branched off from this main water channel. According to google map [2] the water body streches (for at least 50km)from the Pearl River estuary to Xijiang and bisects Zhongshan appears to be the one that forms and "island". When finding the name of this water body that transverse the city, I have some references that says the city sits on "Zhongshan Island", aka "Macau Island". There are only 16 google results on "Zhongshan Island", none of which looks authoritative. Whether those sources can be accepted as reliable is another story. --Kvasir (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Chinese wikipedia on Zhongshan (which is currently a Featured Article) reveals a better description on the geography of Zhongshan for those who can read Chinese: [3] It says Zhongshan was indeed situated on an island 5000 years ago, until sedimentation from Xijiang and Beijiang have reached the island and turn the sea around it into a flood plain. This Zhongshan government webpage also gives a good description of the hydrology (三、水文) in the prefecture-level city. The terminology used there are 水道 (channel), 河 (river) and 溪 (creek). Too bad I have yet found a map saying which one is which. It'll take more time to interpret from the descriptions which water body is the one we are interested in. --Kvasir (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Are Jiya Shuidao and Xiaolan Shuidao artificial waterways or remnants of the filled up sea? [4] Burgerist (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Great map! Shuidao (水道) literally means "channel", which doesn't indicate whether it is an artificial or a natural fluvial waterways. The major waterways that "could" render a "Zhongshan Island" seems to be 小欖水道 (Xiaolan Shuidao) or 石岐河/水道 (Shiqi Shuidao), and 雞鴉水道 (Jiya Shuidao). According to Google map, Shiqi Shuidao is hydrologically connected to Jiya Shuidao right through the Zhongshan urban area. The next step would be to find references on these waterways and determine their type. The following text are from the Zhongshan government site concerning the hydrology within the municipality:
雞鴉水道 北接容桂水道，兩岸北起經東風、阜沙鎮；東岸北起經南頭鎮、馬新聯圍和民三聯圍，在大南尾與小欖水道匯流，注入橫門水道出海，全長33公里，面寬200至300米。該水道渲泄西江洪流，兩岸成為中山市的防洪地區。Jiya Shuidao: Starts north from 容桂 Shuidao at the banks of 東風 (Dongfeng) and 阜沙 (Fusha) towns. Also with 南頭 (Nantou), 馬新聯圍 and 民三聯圍 on the east bank. Confluence with 小欖水道(Xiaolan Shuidao) at 大南尾, draining out to sea at 橫門水道 (Hengmen Shuidao). Length of 33km, width of 200-300m. That channel drains flow of Xijiang, its two banks form a flood protection area of Zhongshan.
小欖水道 北接順德市馬寧水道，于鶯哥咀注入市境內。兩岸途經小欖、坦背、港口鎮；東風東岸途經東鳳、阜沙鎮，在大南尾與雞鴉水道匯流注入橫門水道出海。全長31公里，面寬150至300米。該水道渲泄上游西江洪水，河道兩岸成為市境主要的防洪地區。Xiaolan Shuidao: Starts north Shunde's 馬寧 Shuidao, enter the city at 鶯哥咀. Passing the banks of 小欖 (Xiaolan)、坦背、港口鎮, (Gangkou); on the east banks are 東風 (Dongfeng) and 阜沙 (Fusha) towns. Confluence with Jiya Shuidao at 大南尾, draining out to sea at 橫門水道 (Hengmen Shuidao). Length of 31km, width of 150-300m. That channel drains flow of Xijiang, its two banks forms an important flood protection area of Zhongshan.
石岐河 橫穿市境中部，往東北經郊區、張家邊區出東河口水閘，注入橫門水道；西往南經環城區和板芙鎮，至西河口水閘，出螺洲門，全長46公里，面寬80至200米。Shiqi he/shuidao: transverses the centre of the municipality, flows northeast through rural area, Zhangjiabian and drains into 橫門水道 (Hengmen Shuidao) through the east floodgate (東河口水閘). Flows southwest through 環城區 and 板芙 (Banfu) towards the west floodgate (西河口水閘) and exit at 螺洲門. Length of 46km, width of 80-200m. --Kvasir (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
With floodgates constructed at both ends of Shiqi he/shuidao, it would be safe to say that the flow in this waterway is controlled, whether it is a natural or artificial channel. There is still not enough info to say if these channels make the Zhongshan area an island (thus Macau sitting at the southern tip of that island) following the "tidal strait" argument. The next step would be to find references to these channels of their tidal behaviour IF we are to accept tidal strait as a criteria. --Kvasir (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You are assuming that islands have to be named, or else they are not islands. First of all, this is not true. Second, the island where the Macau Peninsula is located does have a name. 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The peninsula is not connected to the continent, but an island in a river delta. And in fact the peninsula was itself an island until the tombolo to its north became an isthmus. 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Note for Kvasir, I'm going to leave the link to the map for you but I am going to remove comments from Burgerist as commentary by a banned user, Instantnood. Sorry if it interrupts the conversation flow, but denying disruptive trolls a part of any conversation is part of the banning policy to discourage their disruption and return. You may like this as well, zh:中山市. And fwiw, Macau is not an island. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Oops, didn't know that's one of his sock puppets. Anyway, this research seems to have gone further than what seems to be philosophical debate so far. Link 3 up there was referenced to zh:中山市. I wasn't saying Macau is an island just that the handfull sources among the 16 mention this "Zhongshan Island" is also called "Macau Island". Through this discussion with "Burgerist", and important concept of "tidal strait" was raised in the case of Manhattan. This could be used as a criteria to determine whether an estuary island is a true island. Just something to consider. --Kvasir (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
To recap of what information we have:
  • There is no doubt that Macau has a natural land border with China (at least 340m), hence not an island or archipelago by itself.
  • There is no doubt that Macau peninsula sits on a landmass that is completely surrounded by water: Pearl River Estuary to the east, Xijiang to the west, South China Sea to the south, and a number of tributaries to the north, namely Jiya Shuidao (雞鴉水道), Xiaolan Shuidao (小欖水道) and Shiqi Shuidao (石岐河/水道).
  • By strict definition of "landmass surrounded by water", this landmass would be an island
  • Needs concensus on whether it is meaningful to define what an island is in an estuary geography as water channels get displaced from periodic floods.
  • There are currently very few references (16) of this landmass as "Zhongshan Island", which is also known as "Macau Island" according to those sources.
  • No information on whether any of the three channels are in fact tidal straits, which, if they are, would provide an argument for a "Zhongshan Island". --Kvasir (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)