Talk:Continent

Dueling Continents

I do find it somewhat disconcerting that we have to define Australia as Oceania (AUS/NZ/New Guinea/Indonesia) and then continue to call it Australia, so that someone finds an Indonesian mountain as Australia's highest point, and other Indonesian facts included in Asia. :-( The first line of the article Indonesia says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.73.22.113 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The article should use the correct definition of "Continental Australia" (mainland, Tasmania, and New Guinea). A note could be appended to that section of the article giving the values for the "Australasia" and "Oceania" alternatives. --Khajidha (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes in the Graphics

This article contains several variations of a graphic which wrongly labels the region encompassing Australia, New Zealand, Papua and the Pacific Islands as "Australia". This is just wrong. The region encompassing Australia, New Zealand, Papua and the Pacific Islands can be described as the region of Oceania, but NOT as the continent of Australia or Australasia (and yes, I have read the massive argument below - even the few people trying to argue that Australia is a continent are not contending that the Australian continent extends to New Zealand or the Pacific Islands). The region encompassing Australia, New Zealand and Papua can be described as Australasia, but NOT Australia (because NZ is not part of the Australian continent). The region encompassing the Australian mainland might be described as the continent of Australia. Suggestion for fixing this: Either "grey out" the Pacific Islands and NZ or change the label from "Australia" to "Oceania". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 08:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

How many continents? America as a continent?

Can you add in the article that North and South America are not considered as 2 continents everywhere (maybe it's an American point of view), in Europe, we consider America as only one continent (see wikipedia in other languages for the word "continent".) I believe it's important to have a general point of view in an article, not only from one country, or some countries, and explaining the differences of point of view, readers from all around the world read these articles.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:D33:B118:7116:5565 (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC) 

Uh, did you read the article? The various combinations of continents usually considered is explained in some depth. And of course, many Europeans use the seven continent model - the point is discussed in more depth at Continent#Number_of_continents. WilyD 13:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In my country, we have short attention spans. Readers from all around the world read these articles.208.68.128.90 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continente--8Sirlo6 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of clarification

I removed a note from a reference because it made the point even harder to understand. If anyone can actually straighten out what this means it might be worth readding. "Note and clarification on the above: the sometimes used in Greece 5 and 5+1 continents models mentioned above are equivalent to the 6 (inhabited) continents combined-America model excluding/including (separately mentioning) the uninhabited and once lesser-known or unknown Antarctica; they don't refer to some other 5 or other number continent modeling scheme." The 6 inhabited continents model is a separated America model. --Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

History

By "history" I mean history of the concept, which goes back, IANM, to ancient Greece, with the then-known world divided into Europe, Asia and Africa. I am surprised that this history of the concept has no mention, let alone a proper discussion, including an etymology. It is briefly mentioned in Old World, but without proper citations. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Australia

Not trying to insult my friends from down under, but I was taught as a boy that Australia was an island, or was "either a large island or a small continent." Was there some point at which the world decided Australia was a continent, or were my teachers (back in antiquity) merely dopes? Was it the discovery of tectonic plates? Note that I am not debating its current status as a continent -- I agree that it is -- but wondering why I was taught what I was taught. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You are expecting the term "continent" to have some simple, unambiguous definition that can be easily applied regardless of the background of the person enumerating the continents. It doesn't. At different times, in different places, and in different cultures different lists are and have been used. The classification of Australia as a continent is in line with the general thrust of native English language sources. Some English language sources and many non-English sources include Australia as the largest land mass in a continent known as Oceania (or, occasionally, Australasia). But, by and large, English language sources present it as a continent so Wikipedia follows suit. --Khajidha (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Classical definition

I recollect being taught that much of the reason for the classical split between Europe and Asia was the practical impossibility of crossing the Ural Mountans; that these provided an effective barrier between the populations at the time. I believe we were told Marco Polo had to stay south because there were no practical routes across them. (In fact, the linked article states, "The mountain range forms the natural boundary between Europe and Asia.")

Similar conditions exist on the other joined continents: today, for example, the Pan American highway does not connect from Panama to Colombia because it is still not technically feasible to build a road through the "southern" end of the isthmus. I'm less sure of the African isthmus, but I thought Sinai was a rather deadly desert, speaking in terms of classical travelers.

It just seems to me that the article needs more discussion of the classical conditions that gave rise to the classical divisions, as opposed to focusing on why those definitions no longer make much sense today. CoyneT ^talk 17:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)