Talk:Australia (continent)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Oceania Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Melanesia, which collaborates on articles related to Melanesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related work groups (nations): Related work groups (territories):

Portal	Australia (continent) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Merge with Geography of Australia or Australia-New Guinea 2 map 3 Continental Drift 4 like the other continents its geographic area is defined by its continental shelf 5 Australia only or Aust + New Guinea 5.1 continental shelf reference 5.2 island continent 6 Australia only or Aust + New Guinea - again 6.1 Once again 7 Australasia 8 Picture 9 So what do we call the big island? 10 Including eastern Indonesia 11 Merge with Indo-Australian Plate? 12 New Zealand 13 eastern Indonesia and biogeog 14 Suggested change of article name 14.1 December 2006 discussion on name change (continued) 14.2 Yeesh 15 Major edits by User:Nurg 16 Australian article 17 Use of 'continent of Australia' 18 Original proposed name for the Commonwealth 19 If Australia is a Contienent...

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

Not that I particularly wish to weigh into this obtuse argument, but I do so as I am aware that children read this and take it as fact. Australia is a continent and any challenge to the difference is only a challenge on the word "continent" itself. The fact that the challenger remarks that Australia is termed a continent for marketing purposes only goes to prove the prejudice of the challenger and hence invalidate his/her argument. It should also be noted that if one follows the (il)logical course of argument presented, then New Zealand is also a separate "continent", which would once again challenge the definition of "continent".

PLEASE NOTE, that the term continent was first used in 1559, but the theory of continental drift was not exposed until 1920. To use the latter theory to redefine the former definition is not logical. If anything Wegener used the term continental shelf as the tectonic plates he "discovered" happened to, in large part, coincide with the already defined continents. But the important thing is that continents were defined prior to tectonic plates being "discovered" so it is completely illogical to try to redefine the term continent due to what we now may know about such plates.... Solomon07

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

I agree. --cj | talk 08:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a merger as well. I can't see this article develop in any way. Anything that can be added regarding the continent can be put in the main Australia article or, as proposed, under Geography of Australia.--Kalsermar 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better merged with Australia-New Guinea. It is clear that the two articles are about the same thing the only problem is whether to merge Australia (continent) into Australia-New Guinea or the other way around. I think, perhaps, it would be best to merge them both to Australia (continent) as I haven't heard or read the other term outside Wikipedia. I think I'll do this. If, after all, Australian-New Guinea is the better place, then it won't be hard to move it back there. Something would have to be done about the map, though, because inspite of the article Australia (continent)'s insistance that to exclude New Guinea is a mistake the map does just this. Jimp 25Jan06

Hmmm. I'd support merging Australia-New Guinea into Australia (continent), since authoritative references to the former may not be forthcoming or in abundance and most sources – including dictionaries – will hark of the simpler term to describe the continent (where the simpler term is also abound). I don't think appropriate elements should merely be dumped into Geography of Australia (and shouldn't be merged with it), since there may be ambiguity there about whether the article does (or should) deal with the country alone or continent. To compare: crack is a form of cocaine, but not vice versa. This move/merge to the current locale would also be inline with the common naming convention and the practice of naming articles that are ambiguous; see Georgia, etc. (Also note that there are more Google hits for Sahul than "Australia-New Guinea" and scant few for Meganesia.)

And I'll fix/update the maps, which I didn't have a chance to properly update earlier. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the former Australia-New Guinea here as discussed. I agree that this article should not be merged with Geography of Australia nor have appropriate elements dumped into it. As discussed on that article's talk page it seems that the article is, should be and always had been intended to be about the geography of the Commonwealth of Australia. It would also seem that the main reason that a merge with Geography of Australia was suggested in the first place was that it appeared unlikely that Australia (continent) would "develop into a significqantly distinctive article,". Well, I think that by merging Australia-New Guinea here it has so developed. Jimp 07:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Works for me! When the geography article is more refined (or even before), it might also be wise to add a hatnote atop the that article to promote clarity. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've updated the map (and have made appropriate article edits) to include New Guinea and intervening islands; since the continental shelf boundary is rather undefined (and based on some online searching), I colourised Australia (including Tasmania and Torres Strait Islands), and New Guinea (including the eastern portion of Indonesia (Aru/Maluku Islands)) and mainland provinces of Papua New Guinea).

I trust this is sufficient; if any changes are required or if there are any questions, let me know. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map

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

Over a year later and the map is still wrong. Is anyone able to fix it?

I shall fix it soon. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continental Drift

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

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

Continental drift in only a theory, but some parts of the world move at over a centimetre a year, and satellites can compare this to older data and show that continents and islands are moving. 220.253.106.212 10:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I've tweaked, I think, the content to better describe the region; let me know whatyathink. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is developing really well and now makes excellent sense as to why the article on the continent is separate from Geography of Australia.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Australia only or Aust + New Guinea

The term 'continent' is defined by a contigious land mass and has been so since 1559. To suggest that somehow the Australia has been defined as a continent for marketing purposes is quite absurd and false, because, well, Australia wasnt officially discovered at the time the term continent was set down.

Whomever continues to remove my edits and suggest that the continent of Australia includes PNG, which is a completely false and unsupportable assertion, does so at the risk of undermining Wikipedia in its totality. Please reconsider......

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cite http://ask.yahoo.com/20040409.html does not meet our guidelines for a reliable source - see WP:RS I don't think http://www.countriesquest.com/oceania/australia.htm is a reliable source for this geographical purpose either. Just because it is on the web ... Who is this dot com site? The Foreign Affairs web site could be used to say "some call it" the Island Continent - but note it is Government PR, not a geographical source. Foreign Affairs is by definition concerned with politics and diplomacy. I have reverted your edits. Please come up with a source that has some geographical authority. I have reinstated the New Guinea ref but I have requested a citation.--Arktos ^talk 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The argument would seem to be about the Sahul Shelf on which there is a wikipedia article. These two Indonesian reference about the shelf would appear to support the contention that the shelf is part of the continent.[4][5] --Arktos ^talk 23:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

These refs have the Sahul Shelf on the Australasian continent. The shelf includes New Guinea. Note please comment on content not editors as per WP:NPA and WP:Civil--Arktos ^talk 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Timestamps: reversion at 9:36 followed three minutes after my provision of cites That you hadn't read the cites in the 3 minutes, ie checked the talk page for a response before reversion, was the problem.

References:

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

Reverting to reintroduce a spelling mistake or typo magnifies the issue.--Arktos ^talk 12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] continental shelf reference

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

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

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

[edit] island continent

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

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

Snottygobble 02:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Moved here from Ref desk:misc

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

read

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Continents-Critique-Metageography/dp/0520207432/sr=8-1/qid=1157962394/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7510196-0752049?ie=UTF8&s=books

and then come back and make your changes. Jasbutal 08:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

look, don't get mad at me! u should be mad at wikipedia. But you proved it yourself:

1. papua new guinea is part of Asia.

2. papua new guinea is part of Australia

3. Therefore, Australia is part of Asia!!!

logic doesn't lie. sorry, man, I really feel bad for you and your country. I admit, I never knew Australia was part of Asia until now either. Man am I glad I'm not australian...Jasbutal 08:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

ah, "It is part of the continent of Asia" I love your confidence in the non-arbitrariness of continent distribution. Truly, the Lord created the 7 continents like he did the 7 planets, the seven leaves on the new oak branch and the 7 major constellations. Jasbutal 18:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok check out the following articles, Continent for the different arrangments of continents, ranging from 3 to 7, Big bang theory and evolution for the lord thingy, solar system for the planets comment, Oak for a picture of various oak branches with more than 7 leaves, List of constellations for the many constellations. Hmm, maybe if we have an article on thinking before speaking aswell somewhere... Philc _T^E_C^I 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

apparently you missed my first post. I think you should read sarcasm and then STFU Jasbutal 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Once again

As I said above:

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

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

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

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

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

• Australia ... is a country in the Southern Hemisphere comprising the world's smallest continent and a number of islands in the Southern, Indian, and Pacific Oceans.
  • This assumes that the continent does not extend beyond the mainland of the Commonwealth of Australia.

• The continent of Australia has been inhabited for more than 42,000 years by Indigenous Australians.
  • There's no mention of inhabitation by native New Guineans.

• After sporadic visits by fishermen from the north and by European explorers and merchants starting in the seventeenth century, the eastern half of the continent was claimed by the British in 1770 and officially settled through penal transportation as the colony of New South Wales on 26 January 1788.
  • That British claim did not include any part of New Guinea as far as I know.

• The first undisputed recorded European sighting of the Australian continent was made by the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, who sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula in 1606.
  • But from New Guinea, it's clear there was European visitation to New Guinea dating back to 1526.

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

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

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

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

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

We have an authorative reference as to why New Guinea is included (see above). See the article on Lie-to-children which explains the concept of pedagogic simplification - ie Such statements are not usually intended as deceptions, and may, in fact, be true to a first approximation or within certain contexts. For example Newtonian mechanics, by modern standards, is factually incorrect (as it fails to take into account relativity or quantum mechanics) but it is still a valuable and useful model in many situations. - an approximation is that the country Australia = the continent - suitable for schoolchildren, not for an encyclopaedia - not unless you can find an authorative, not simplified, reference to support the view, this article should probably make reference to the popular notion and to Pedagogic simplification, but as per user JacOfOz, the Australia article should be made correct and consistent with the view referenced here.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea that a continent includes all the islands on the continental shelf is new to me, but makes sense. Given my biological background, I'm very aware of the Wallace Line through Indonesia, which marks the divide between Asian and Australian fauna. By implication, the Australian continent extends all the way to Lombok, just across the water from Bali. However this is a difficult concept for many to come to terms with, although I notice the article does address the issue. I think some headings would help emphasise the point, though. --Michael Johnson 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australasia

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

It's a geopolitical term - see Australasia. Snottygobble 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you read the article on Australasia?--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

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

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

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

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

Yes, it is probably also known as Australia. But it is easily clarified by referring to it as "mainland Australia" or just "the mainland". Snottygobble 03:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What's confusing is the difference between Australasia, Australia (continent) and Oceania. Perhaps address this controversy somewhere? 83.134.144.162 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is confusing or controversial.

The lead of the article Australasia states it is a term variably used to describe a region of Oceania – namely Australia, New Zealand, and neighbouring islands in the Pacific Ocean.

For Oceania the article states The primary use of the term Oceania is to describe a macrogeographical region that lies between Asia and the Americas, with the Australian continent as the major landmass and consisting of some 25,000 islands in the Pacific. The name Oceania is used because, unlike the other regional groupings, it is the ocean and adjacent seas rather than a continent that link the lands together.

This continent article states Australia (also called Australia-New Guinea, Australinea, Sahul, or Meganesia) is a continent made up of the Australian mainland, Tasmania, New Guinea, and intervening islands. These landmasses are separated by the Torres Strait, which runs between Australia and New Guinea, and the Bass Strait between mainland Australia and Tasmania. From biological and geological points of view, however, they form a single unit.

I don't quite see what clarification is being sought or needs to be added.--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. It used to be called New Holland - has this term fallen completely into disuse? This must be the only significant piece of land in the world that does not have a proper name. Nurg 05:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting. In Australia, the right to gazette official geographic place names resides with the individual states. So far no state has had the gumption to gazette the place name "Australia" in reference to anything: not the continent, not the country, not the mainland. The Gazetteer of Australia does list a geographic place of type "CONT" (continent) named "Australia", but that is an unofficial record.[15] "New Holland" had fallen into disuse by the 1830s, and is now archaic. I believe you're right that "mainland Australia" doesn't really have a name. Hesperian 05:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Including eastern Indonesia

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

I have had a go but used eastern islands of the Malay Archipelago, including Timor, to the Wallace Line, rather than the political Indonesia and East Timor because we are trying to talk about geography rather than countries and politics. Similarly the reference to New Guinea in the lead is to the island rather than Papua and Irian Jaya.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not quite accurate and, thus, I've made appropriate edits. Continents are primarily delineated by continental shelves; as such, Wallacea should not be used to define the continent. As well, it is probably better that "intervening islands" remains as is (i.e., somewhat vague): for example, numerous authoritative sources place Timor (for a variety of reasons) in Asia, not Australia or Oceania. Cogito ergo sumo 02:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Indo-Australian Plate?

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

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

[edit] New Zealand

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

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

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

[edit] eastern Indonesia and biogeog

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

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

Yes, the continent of Australia entails more than just notions of biogeography (which are still legitimate) -- arguably, it was incorrect and 'silly' to place so much emphasis on this aspect to the exclusion of others. Continents are primarily delineated by shorelines and (by extension) their continental shelves -- which is corroborated by a number of sources including The McGraw Concise Encyclopedia of Earth Science -- not just by the prevalence or uniqueness of flora and fauna in areas of note. Continents may or may not coincide with ecozones or bioregions (e.g., Wallacea notwithstanding, the Lydekker line west of New Guinea corresponds to the Australian continental shelf), but it is incorrect to assume these entities are all one and the same. Said biogeographical content merely needs to be reframed, not removed. Cogito ergo sumo 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the silly comment - can now see where you are coming from. The biology section does need some clarification. --Michael Johnson 02:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

AOK; I also have some background in biology, so I'll try to tweak the content regarding notions of biogeography et al. when I get a few moments. My main challenge, actually, is in knowing which system of bioregions/ecozones to include -- content in Wp does not seem to reflect the prevailing 'state' of affairs (e.g., Arctogea, etc.). :) Cogito ergo sumo 03:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested change of article name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at it objectively I think Australia-New Guinea is the leading contender, although I have a personal liking for Sahul. Nurg 10:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this debate is in good hands. I support Nurg's proposal for a rename, and I'll trust his judgement on the new name. Hesperian 11:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the points made by Nurg, but the point of this article (and I queried its intention early on) was to talk about the continent and not the island. In the first instance the lead should define what we are talking about and I think does so. If we want to move away from Australia (continent) as an article title, then I favour either Sahul or Australinea, but I suspect both those terms come with their own baggage and are not quite as general and I would prefeer redirects from those to the simpler Australia (continent). I do not favour Australia-New Guinea as that seems too tied up with political boundaries.

Nurg makes the point about continental Europe excluding say the British Isles. I feel that is because it is an Anglocentric term and the Continent is somewhere you travel too. The English of a certain generation and class would use it in the same breath as talking about the "Near East" and the "Far East" ... fine terms for the English of a certain period but we are talking continent small c and lining up with articles such as that on North America, different discussion to English travelling in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Often for many people North America is synonomous with the United States but they can quickly disentangle themselves from that as Canada is so large. Note that North America as a continent does not equal North American Plate. If you ask somebody to list continents they do not go Africa, Asia, North and South America, Antarctica, Sahul ... or Australinea or Australia-New Guinea - the last in that list is Australia. We need to make it clear in the name that we are not talking the political entity. We need to make it clear in the lead how we have defined our terms. The term continent, as per the English travelling classes to name just one group, can be used in different ways. Wikipedia has an article on Continent and there it has listed the subject of this article as Australia, another name would not match the list in that article in my opinion - but we should certainly discuss it there too if changing the article name.

If any editor thinks that the term "island continent" does not derive from pedagogic simplification ... I have no difficulty with a rewrite of that section and an expansion to acknowledge popular usage, for example as per Nurg's search of the Sydney Morning Herald and reference to various scholars (normally in the arts though). My write up on that point was in response to a couple of comments on the article such as can be seen above, for example those by DXRAW, on this talk page, which were asserting "every single student in Australia is taught that Australia is a continent of its own" plus "In Australia we are taught that the continent of Australia is only our country and that New Guinea and other country :P are part of Asia. This is what the Australian education system says." from Rkeys.

As one point of reference of what Australian school children are taught, the NSW HSC curriculum at [18] states "The Australian continent lies entirely within the Australia-India plate, and so it does not experience plate boundary processes." At [19] doesn't help with a definition but for example discusses the "Interaction between the converging Australian and Pacific plates has produced the current New Guinea mobile belt." They also refer to continent probably as in island continent at [20] and [21] [22] etc - it isn't clear. They never refer in their curriculum to "Sahul" or "Australianea" (at least not found by Google): Google HSC curriculum on continent compared with a similar search for Sahul or Australinea

Not sure where that leaves us, other than the importance of a lead clearly defining terms and robust referencing. I would really rather not go for the alternate article names as above, they are not simple and don't match the continent series, but of course won't object if concensus goes another way.--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Amen to what Nurg said. —Nightstallion (?) 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Responding to some of Golden Wattle's points. Re Australia-New Guinea seems too tied up with political boundaries: Not sure what you mean. The New Guinea part doesn't correspond to political boundaries. Australia is a political entity, but that could be used more as an argument against the present article name, than against the proposed one.

It is totally correct that the term continent is used in different ways. The different usages are now explained better on the continent page. It is also correct that when people list the continents they say Australia. But exactly what they mean by Australia varies. Often it will be the mainland of Australia only; relatively few people will be thinking of New Guinea as well. Most dictionaries include "continuous" land in their definitions of "continent" (see references in continent); only some extend it to the shelf as an additional definition. When Wp articles refer to the mainland of Australia as a continent (either explicitly or implicitly), or use continent as a synecdoche for the whole of the country of Aust., they should link to Australia; when they refer to the continental-shelf continent, they should link to Australia (continent)/Australia-New Guinea. The continent article links to both as appropriate - and also to Oceania and Australasia, to cover all usages! Granted there is ambiguity between Australia the mainland and Australia the country. But the ambiguity is reality and we have to accept it (and explain it where necessary). And that ambiguity will not be resolved by whatever we call this article - it could be resolved by creating an additional article for the mainland alone (but I'm not suggesting that be done - I can live with the ambiguity). Nurg 05:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that Matthew Flinders and Lachlan Macquarie were not thinking of New Guinea when they proposed "Australia" as the name for the country (although it wasn't a country back then, just a collection of British colonies, which did not even cover the entire big island). The issue seems to be that geographers, in their wisdom(?), have only relatively recently given the name "Australia" to a continent, when the name already applied to a country that was a part of that continent. (God only knows what they were thinking of. They would never have named Africa "Nigeria", for example, because of the obvious scope for confusion.) I wonder if we can find out when this continent-naming occurred, and why they chose that particular name. If "Australia" is indeed the accepted formal technical geographical term for the continent, I don't think that Wikipedia has any brief - consensus or not - to go around renaming it to anything else, as this would breach our no original research policy. Besides, nobody but us few would know of the existence of this new name, and we'd have an article that few people would ever read. But on the other hand, "Sahul" also exists. So are geographers unanimous in what they call the continent? If not, why not, and do they intend to get together to agree on what the continent will be known as? Can we do anything to influence that decision to ensure it is NOT called "Australia". In the meantime, I still firmly believe that readers of the article about the country Australia need to be informed that the same name also refers to a larger entity, and that the continent and the country are not coterminous, but overlap. Another issue that's just dropped into my mind is that some years ago Australia the big island lost its claim as the world's largest island, on the basis that it is more correctly described as a continental land mass, and the honour now goes to Greenland. I can accept that. However, if the big island is no longer viewed as a continent but only part of a continent, doesn't that mean that it's an island after all and should be restored to its place as the world's largest. If it's not a continent in its own right, and it's not an island, what is it? JackofOz 23:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe geographers have named the continental-shelf continent "Australia". Nurg 05:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

JackofOz wrote: "God only knows what they were thinking of. They would never have named Africa "Nigeria", for example, because of the obvious scope for confusion." Your faith is misplaced: "Africa" is in origin the name of the Roman province around modern Tunis, and whoever first used it for the entire continent did the equivalent of your "Nigeria" - we're just lucky that the more restricted usage has become obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orcoteuthis (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think it is important that we define what we are talking about. To that end, I have placed the words "In geology," at the beginning of the article. Just so people know we are not talking about political, historical, biological or any other definition. If we are talking about the geological continent, then we should use the name geologists use, and just make that clear. Other than that I really don't have an opinion. --Michael Johnson 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 2006 discussion on name change (continued)

I proposed a name change, suggesting "Australia-New Guinea". With Hesperian and Nightstallion, that's 3 in favour, Michael Johnson is neutral and Golden Wattle is opposed. JackofOz's comments were perhaps based on a bit of a misapprehension (apologies in advance if that's not right). So that's a majority in favour, but I have also responded to what I think are Golden Wattle's main points. I think there is a mandate for the change, but will wait a bit in case there are further comments. Nurg 05:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that Australia (country) and Oceania (political) already have articles and this is a primarily geological article, this should be under Australia-New Guinea if it is to be moved from its present location.Orderinchaos78 12:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its very important to qualify that International Maritime Law and the International law issues that arose from the Australia-East Timor negotations do not relate to this article SatuSuro 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree that a name change is needed, none of these options are likely to be search terms. Lankiveil 13:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Lankiveil, what do you think are the most likely search terms? Say, the top 3. Nurg 09:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The current article title, for one =). My objections are basically the same as Golden Wattle's comments below. Lankiveil 12:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Disagree (still) --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Golden Wattle. I responded to some of your earlier comments. What are your main reasons for still disagreeing? Nurg 09:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think disambiguation by (continent) is appropriate and adequate to distinguish from the other uses of the word Australia. That to date the article on continent refers to it as Australia is a good indication that the most common term to think about the subject of this article is Australia and not some other term. I think other terms including Australia-New Guinea, Sahul, Meganesia, Greater Australia and Australinea should all be redirects (as they are in fact are with the exception of Greater Australia) and thus they will work as search terms. The word synecdoche is absolutely perfect for describing the quandary but I don't think the answer is to rename with another term. The answer is I believe to have a good lead to the article defining what we mean and proper references to support our assertion.

I note that Australia-New Guinea has been used quite frequently in other articles, particularly zoology articles (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Australia-New_Guinea) and the next most commonly linked term is Sahul - refer Special:Whatlinkshere/Sahul

My disagreement is not strong, merely my two cents and I am happy to go with concensus.--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate the reasoning behind this proposed move, but the problem is that there is really no alternative. None of the alternatives proposed are commonly known. In fact, I'd say they're only known to the geologist community, and the chances of them needing to research on Wikipedia seems slim. The current title seems like the least worst alternative, to me.

My other problem is that including New Guinea seems frightfully arbitrary, while there is some legitimate scientific opinion holding that they're the same 'continent', it doesn't seem to be dominant. To me, putting the two together just because they're on the same continental shelf seems like moving Europe to Europe-Britain, or North America to North America-Newfoundland.

Based on this, I'm going to have to object to this change, sorry. MichelleG 13:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

"Australia-New Guinea" may not be commonly known but surely when people come across it, they quickly deduce what it means with considerable accuracy. On the other hand, "Australia (continent)" is highly ambiguous as it commonly refers to the Australian mainland only. Can you explain what you mean when you say including New Guinea seems arbitrary? It seems to me a fairly precise name. The analogy with "Europe-Britain" and "North America-Newfoundland" is not quite apt as neither Europe nor North America are individual countries. Likewise we do not have articles called Europe (continent) or North America (continent), but it would also be inapt to use that fact as an argument in favour of my proposed change, so I merely slip the fact in. I don't think scholars in Britain or Newfoundland would object as much to being told they are part of Europe or North America, as scholars in Papuan Indonesia or Papua New Guinea would object to being told they are in Australia, the continent. Nurg 11:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello - two cents worth from North America -- Speaking as a geologist, I know that Australia and New Guinea and a few other items like Timor are more or less on the same tectonic plate (although it could be argued that NE New Guinea is a zone caught up between the Australian and Pacific Plates) and as you all know, they share the same continental shelf. But if you say to me "the continent of Australia," I would hear that in the geographic, not geologic context, and would think of Australia per se, plus Tasmania, perhaps. If you look up the area of Australia in any atlas or almanac, it includes neither the continental shelf nor New Guinea. It seems to me that this is mostly a matter of semantics, but since the lead paragraph of the article starts with "In geology...", then as long as you are clear what you mean (as it seems to me you all are), then just go with it. There might be a reason for a link on New Guinea pages to this one. Cheers, Geologyguy 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Geologyguy, I have been deferring doing anything about the "In geology..." bit which Michael Johnson added. I think it is inappropriate. The majority of the content is about geography (including biogeography) and biology. There is a little about geology and brief reference (which could be expanded) to archaeology. Of the 5 categories, 2 are explicitly geography, 2 more I consider also geography and the 5th is natural history (which can include geology but is also much broader). A geology article of relevance is actually Australian Plate, although it's not called that (not sure why it doesn't have its own article). I don't think it is necessary to have "In ..." anything at the start, but if we do, I think "In geography" is more appropriate. The concept of continent is primarily geographic, is it not? Geology deals more with plates and cratons than continents, does it not? Geologists and Michael Johnson (biologist) - your thoughts?

I understood the article was to be about geology, which is why I added the (admittedly clumsy) "in geology". Clearly the definition of the area covered is not a bioligical, historical, cultural, political or geological definition. If it has no validity in geology, then what reason is there for it? --Michael Johnson 01:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, if we accept even that the topic is a combination of geography, geology, botany and archaeology, Geologyguy may swing in favour of a name change, based on his 2nd and 3rd sentences. Is that right, Geologyguy?

Anyway, what reputable geology sources say that "Australia" is the name of the continent which embraces Australia and New Guinea? If scholars won't even call it "Greater Australia"^[1], I'd be very surprised if they called it "Australia". Nurg 11:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (as I tried to say in my roundabout way above!) that the concept of continent is basically geographic. And indeed, the geologic concept is "Australian Plate" or, as redirected, "Indo-Australian Plate" - there is not a separate page because the Indian Ocean plate and Australia are more or less moving together as one. Just as you say, to me as a geologist, "Australia" does not mean the plate, it means either the country, or the continent which would be more or less one and the same (depending mostly on how you count Tasmania). The Australian (or Indo-Australian) plate has little to do with the continent (though it does include it), or even the continent+continental shelf, inasmuch as the plate includes vast areas of oceanic crust. I'm not familiar with a usage of the word 'continent' that automatically includes the continental shelf - without specification, shelfal areas are not counted in areas, nor (I think - I am not a lawyer) in determinations of international boundaries etc.

So, even though I sort of applauded the intro "In geology..." above, I was actually still uncomfortable with "Australia (continent)" because in geology, the word continent alone would, I think, usually imply the geographic context. We would go on to talk about continental shelves, continental crust, continental rocks, none of which would necessarily be coincident with the geographic continent. I would definitely make a distinction between any 'continent' and 'continental areas' - I would say that is general among geologists, though obviously I can't speak for the entire profession. Thus, the sentence in paragraph 3, "Geologically the continent extends to the edge of the continental shelf, so the now-separate lands can still be considered a continent" would for me need to be re-phrased as "Geologically continental rocks extend to the edge of the continental shelf, so the now-separate lands would all be considered part of the same continental mass." To me, below-sea-level areas are in no way "continents" (geographically) even though they may indeed be continental in nature (geologically). "Continental" and "continent" have significantly different technical meanings, which seems to me to be the source of much of the disagreement (most amicable disagreements, might I note!) here.

No, I'm not aware of sources that equate "Australia" the continent with Australia+New Guinea, unless in something where it was defined for convenience. Likewise, there might exist refs that called "Greater Australia" some who-knows-what entity that might include Indonesia (or parts of it) and even New Zealand, for some specific purpose. To me such writing is confusing, though if the rationale and definition for convenient reference are made clear, I guess it is OK - but not in general and not for an encyclopedia (except in disambiguation, I guess).

I don't know if this helps or complicates more, but I guess I pretty much agree with everything Nurg says. You all are more familiar with how this article has evolved, so I have no plans to do any editing here but just wanted to share what I hope is a general geologist's view (others out there who disagree should jump in!) Cheers Geologyguy 14:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

On 16 December I raised (but did not promote) the possibility of creating an additional article for the mainland alone. I am now firming up this suggestion as it may resolve some of the issues in some people's minds. I have created a draft which I have tentatively called "Australia (mainland)". So I now propose either:

1. Rename the present article "Australia-New Guinea" (as already discussed) and create the new article called either "Australia (mainland)" or "Australia (continent)".
2. Just rename the present article "Australia-New Guinea" (as already discussed).

What does everyone prefer? I am happy with either and if a new article is created, I am happy with either name for it. If we go with the first option, we would need to think carefully about the mechanics in order to minimise the amount of link-changing required - but for now we just need to decide in principle. Feel free to edit the draft in my namespace. Nurg 09:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK it seems "Australia (Continent)" does not correctly apply to the defined area. It seems Australian Plate might - so how about renaming it thus, or else how about just deleting the entire article? --Michael Johnson 01:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I too like the idea of renaming to "Australian Plate", or, if necessary, "Australian Plate (geology)". Lankiveil 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Just so you all understand, the geological Australian Plate - which can be taken as a subdivision of the Indo-Australian Plate, will also include the part of New Zealand west of the Alpine Fault (that is most of western South Island and a good bit of western North Island, as well as all the oceanic areas around Australia. Cheers! Geologyguy 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming to "Australian Plate" wouldn't be correct for the reasons given by Geologyguy. Nurg 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy for Nurg's draft article to be called Australia (continent), and for the current article to be moved as a separate concept. I agree that the proposed use of Australian Plate is incorrect.--cj | talk 00:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nurg's article is good as far as it goes, and why not just put it up? As for Australia (continent) what is to be done? I don't know what it is, I just know what it isn't! Geologists, please tell us, is what is being described from a geological point of view a valid concept, and if it is what is it called????? --Michael Johnson 04:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support the move back to Australia-New Guinea, which is where this article used to live. Australia (continent) is unhelpful, as the geological and geographic senses of "continent" are not entirely synonymous. Sahul and Meganesia aren't bad choices either, but Australia-New Guinea is probably most widely used and understood. Tom Radulovich 07:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Support fot the move away from Australia (continent), assuming the article continues to be about a wider area than the Australian mainland. See discussion in subsequent sections, in which Nurg has pointed out that Australia (continent) is unverifiable for this. I also reject Australia (continent) for an article about the mainland only, despite frequent reference to the mainland as a "continent" (as opposed to an "island"), because of its incorrect implication about New Guinea. Incidentally, imo we should clearly support the concept of the continent in question covering the whole of the island of New Guinea, which is both physically and culturally correct; if Turkey and Russia can be in two continents then so can Indonesia. Viewfinder 09:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite the claims about what Australians are taught in schools, I have yet to find a reliable authority that includes a map which places the eastern part of New Guinea within Asia, although there is some (imo wrong, see above para) variation re the western part. Viewfinder 09:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeesh

My $0.02.;

1. Australia (continent) is fine. Or you could go with "Continental Australia". Either way, I think such a long and pointless discussion about changing an article such as this merely demonstrates the pedantry of those concerned, and though I hestitate to claim dfference from such a despiccable and embarassing state by prostrating myself to the level of you all in order to carry forth this discussion, I feel I must in order tom via one last act of pedantry, dissolve such a concentration of ridiculous pedants that it hurts my brain.

1. In a geologic context, Australia (continent) is technically bunkum anyway; it's the Indo-Australian Plate. It is composed of several distinct fragments of continental crust in a mire of oceanic crustal material, a few remnant ocean island plateaux and failed rifts. However, I agree with everyone who disagrees with a geological basis for naming this article, not because they are more right or less pedantic than the rest of you (and you guys are WAY pedantic, even by Wiki standards!), but because even if the current article lacks coherent geological information it is only a matter of time to put this in with some creative copy editing and a cut and paste, but because it makes no sense to do this because the majority of humans are NOT geologists and consider only continents as being land masses above mean sea level.

1. All the other terms, especially Australia-New Guinea and the like, are obscure terms far from the common usage of most people interested in "Australia, the only nation which owns an entire continent", etcetera. Sahul, meganesia are both rarely used, if not completely obscure terms. Meganesia is to my mind just a flippant anthropological foil to "micronesia"; the anthropological grouping of the Australian aborigine with the micronesian and polynesian peoples. Which is bullshit anyway, as the two groups are completely culturally and historically seperate. So micronesia is out. Sahul? I haven't even heard of it before, and I'm an Aussie.

1. Functionally, there is no synedouche or pedagogical or semantic reason, if anyone really gives a flying fuck, about whether you call an apple an apple or a spade a spade. Why change the name of an article just because it sounds clunky? Really, be honest. You all just want a flashy name which fits just right and doesn't have parentheses in it, because it makes it seem like we can't come up- with a perfect one word name for an article. But this is ridiculous; Australia (continent) obviously means many things; this page could EASILY be turned into its own disambiguation page into Australia (continental geology), Continental Australia (biology), or whatever. But should we split or keep, is more a question of clunkiness of the article than of the title.

So, I vote, that until such times as the article becomes so large, unweildy and rotted with the cankers of sub-headings within nested sub-headings and above 30kb in length it should be left well enough alone and our efforts devoted to Christmas cheer, and New Years festivities. Or, you know, not wasting too much time with pedantry.Rolinator 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major edits by User:Nurg

It seems to me that the claim by Nurg that the Australian continent does not include New Guinea is like claiming that the European continent does not include Great Britain. Are all the world's islands excluded from its continents? So I don't live in Europe after all? I apologise for claiming that the matter has not been discussed on the talk page, that was incorrect, but if there really is a majority in favour of Nurg's changes that I am frankly amazed. I do not think that their logical extensions have been considered, and they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's continental maps. Viewfinder 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the Times Atlas, New Guinea and New Zealand are included within a continent called "Australasia". While this authority should not be taken as indisputable, I really do not think that the view that the Commonwealth of Australia occupies an entire continent is the majority view worldwide. It seems to me that this matter should at least be the subject of discussion on the continent talk page before Nurg's changes are reinstated. Viewfinder 05:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I realise that in Britain we talk about "continental Europe" but then we also talk about the "British Isles", a term which incorrectly implies that Ireland belongs to Britain. Viewfinder 06:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Viewfinder. New Guinea is not part of the contiguous continent of Australia. It does share a continental shelf with Australia and is therefore part of the more broadly-defined continent of Australia-New Guinea. Similarly, as you note, Great Britain is not part of Continental Europe but is part of Europe. Yes, a continental map for the mainland of Australia is required, in addition to the Australia-New Guinea one. It is true that some geographers take Australasia (and even Oceania) to be equivalent to a continent. This is already covered in Continent#Extent_of_continents. However, when the 7 most-commonly recognised continents are listed, "Australia" is most often mentioned, followed perhaps by Oceania ahead of Australasia. The problem with including NZ is that it is on a separate continental shelf (Zealandia). If this doesn't answer all your concerns, feel free to restate any issues. Regards Nurg 06:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nurg, thank you for your response and again I apologise for my incorrect edit summary in the main article. But I am concerned about your claim that a continent has to be contiguous. I agree that this is so according to a narrow definition of continent, but I think that this is a minority definition. The world is divided up into continents, and imo the world's entire land surface has a continent. Iceland tectonically belongs to North America but is still considered to be in Europe. Even if the relevant continent is most frequently referred to as "Australia", that does not imply that it includes only its contiguous part. There needs to be a proper distinction between Australia (continent) and the Commonwealth of Australia. Should we list an alternative European continent on the continent page, that excludes Britain and Ireland? To my mind, there should be eight continents, including an Australia (continent) which includes the island of New Guinea, and an Oceania which includes New Zealand and other oceanic "continents".

In summary, it seems to me that having a article Australia (continent) about a continent that includes only the Commonwealth of Australia's mainland is at best POV. If you stand by your version, I think you should present the case for it on the continent talk page. If your case is supported, then so be it, but imo it will create inconsistencies and confusion. Viewfinder 07:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Viewfinder. No offence taken over the edit summary. There are different definitions of continent and these are covered at Continent#Definitions_and_application. Contiguity is part of one definition; the inclusion of islands on the continental shelf is part of another; the inclusion of oceanic islands beyond the shelf (like Iceland) is part of another. All this is mentioned and referenced in the continent article. Your opinion that the first definition is a minority definition is not supported by the dictionaries listed at footnote 2 in that article, nor by Lewis & Wigen (also cited there). Your opinion that the world's entire land surface has a continent is a view also recorded in Continent#Extent_of_continents, although Lewis & Wigen call Oceania a "quasi continent" (footnote 6). I totally agree there should be a distinction between the country Australia and the continent. I go further and say Wp should distinguish between the country, the contiguous continent and the broader continent of Australia-New Guinea - that gives greatest clarity and unambiguity. Your view that there are 8 continents is not one that gets a mention in the continent article.

We are dealing with a difficult problem, which is why I have been patiently discussing it here for nearly 2 months (to the frustration of some others who seem less patient). While it is always instructive to look at parallels with other situations, this is a unique problem because it is the only case where the same name is used for a country and a continent, which raises real political issues. To say that the Republic of Ireland is part of the British Isles is controversial (per British Isles naming dispute); to say that the Republic of Ireland is part of Great Britain would be downright inflammatory (and incorrect), but that is similar to telling people in Papuan Indonesia or Papua New Guinea that they are in Australia (albeit Australia, the continent). When you ask if we should list an alternative European continent on the continent page, do you mean the continent article or Template:Continents_of_the_world? The article does mention both continental Europe and Europe so I'm guessing you mean the template, in which case, no we don't need continental Europe there. However, because of the unique issues with Australia, I think we need both Australia (continent) and Australia-New Guinea there. I have drafted a new template at User:Nurg/Template:Continents_of_the_world which also solves the Kerguelen Plateau & Zealandia problem which I raised at Template_talk:Continents_of_the_world. There is one outstanding issue which is the need for a wee map of the Australian mainland - for the time being the draft template uses one for the country of Australia.

I see no possible objection to having an article about the mainland of Australia, as well as one about the Australia-New Guinea continent, so it is really an issue over naming, is it not? I'm still of the opinion that "Australia (continent)" is the best name for a mainland article - this is not contradicted by the continent article which currently supports the mainland as one definition of the Australian continent - and I think the revised template would remove potential confusion. I think we are better to keep the discussion here and I see you've added a note to Talk:Continent pointing people here, which is great, thanks. Regards Nurg 10:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

When Australians talk about the Australian mainland, they say "the Australian mainland" or "mainland Australia". If this is to be an article on mainland Australia, I suggest that mainland Australia would be the most appropriate title; it is an informative, concise, unambiguous and inoffensive name in common usage.

I wonder if this standoff could be resolved by turning Australia (continent) into a disambiguation page along the lines of:

There are various conceptions of the continent of Australia, including:
*mainland Australia, the main Australian island;
*the Indo-Australian Plate, the continental plate upon which Australia sits;
*Sahul, also known as Australia-New Guinea, the geological continent consisting of Australia and New Guinea
*...

This way, Nurg could write his mainland Australia article; most of what Golden Wattle has written here would remain intact at the Sahul/Australia-New Guinea article; and those articles that want to link to an article on the Australian continent, without having to think about what they mean by "continent", could continue to link to Australia (continent). Hesperian 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hesperian. Taken in isolation, calling it mainland Australia (or Australia (mainland)) is perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately the article won't exist in isolation. Likewise, an Australia (continent) disambiguation page as you suggest is perfectly reasonable - in isolation. The problem is setting up a situation for people to unthinkingly link to a disamb page - not the worst thing that could happen, but not desirable either. The crux of the problem is exemplified by Template:Continents_of_the_world. There is no dispute that the name that appears in the line of 7 standard continents should be "Australia". The issue is whether it should point to the shelf continent or the mainland continent, and what to do about the other. My proposed solution is to include both as per User:Nurg/Template:Continents_of_the_world.

I'm reluctant to intrude more geological technicalities in your discussion, which I must say again is a remarkably calm one. But geological entities really have little to do with either continental shelves or land masses when we get precise, and I have to correct the perception above about Iceland. Half of Iceland belongs tectonically to the North American Plate, and half to the Eurasian Plate, just as important sections of New Zealand are on the Indo-Australian Plate and parts are on the Pacific Plate. The plates seem to me to be well covered in the tectonic articles; as an outsider, it just seems to me that you all have to decide what it is here that you want to talk about, and give it an agreeable name. I suppose you already knew that!! Cheers, Geologyguy 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The above para was reverted but I restored it, even though it did challenge my comment above about Iceland. That comment was based on the fact that if the sea level were to fall by about 600m the prominence parent of Iceland's highest point would be in North America, not Europe (albeit by a small amount), but OK, perhaps it was not correct. Viewfinder 17:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the first definition of continent, based on land contiguity, is that it creates a myriad of implicit inconsistencies. See Scotland, "Scotland is a nation in Europe", and Europe, which clearly states that Europe is a continent. If we go by the continental shelf definition there are considerably fewer inconsistencies, but there are still some, at least if Geologyguy is correct, see Iceland: "This article is about the country in Europe". (Politically, it is, and the Icelanders surely consider themselves to be European). I am surprised that Nurg is concerned about Papuans and the Australian continent, see Talk: Seven Summits which (I think) includes a major contribution from a Papuan. Do Latin Americans mind belonging to the American continent even though they are not Americans in the sense that they are not part of the USA? I am surprised that the Australian continent is considered by some to include only the Commonwealth of Australia mainland, but if that is so, then OK. But I agree with Hesperian's suggestion that there should be clear disambiguation, and that "Australia (continent)" should at least be neutral on this issue, and that any article about the CA mainland should be so named. I reaffirm my opposition to any article about the CA mainland being named "Australia (continent)". Viewfinder 17:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are many inconsistencies because the concept of continents largely has historical and cultural bases rather than a scientific basis. Ultimately Wp reports the definitions (multiple and inconsistent) that exist, it doesn't create them - that would be original work. I agree there should be clear disambig and I accept that it can be improved in the work I did. I have now added disamb notes to the top of the drafts in my user space User:Nurg/Australia_(continent) and User:Nurg/Australia-New_Guinea.

We need to get beyond opinion to verifiable info. Going back to the start of this discussion 2 mths ago, in the 3rd para I asserted that the first and most common meaning of the Australian continent is the Australian mainland. I based this on references to Price (1972), Scholes (1958), "Australia: the complete encyclopedia" (2001), Clarke (1877), Heathcote (1994), Flannery and Schouten (1993), Johnson (2004), the Sydney Morning Herald (popular rather than scholarly) and, less importantly, other Wp articles cited by JackofOz. No-one here has discredited these references or countered them with opposing references. The ensuing discussion did however persuade me that simply changing the name of Australia (continent) (as I originally proposed) was less desirable than splitting off the Australia-New Guinea continent and keeping the name "Australia (continent)" for the contiguous definition. In the absence of new info from verifiable, reputable sources, I stand by the main thrust of my changes to this article and the draft template for the continents. As to detail, I propose the addition of the disamb hatnotes and welcome other suggestions for the article and template. Nurg 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Nurg. I cited the Times Atlas Australasia, and Wikipedia's continental maps. Also, on the matter of linking, the radical change to the Australia (continent) rendered my recent contributions to Talk:Seven Summits, where I had been citing this article, idiotic, which I was not at all pleased about!! Hence my entry into this debate. I can see that the Australian mainland has been considered too big to be an island and has therefore been called a continent for want of any other term, but like the term "European continent" as used in Britain, this term creates a contradiction with the wider definition and with Wikipedia's continental maps and templates. OK, you can change these maps but where does that leave New Guinea? That it's widely considered to be part of the continent that includes Australia, like Japan is part of the Asia continent, is verifiable and has stood the test of time on Wikipedia. The above discussion that you mention does not seem to me to be unanimous on the subject.

I think that you overestimate the disamb link problem, and underestimate the extent of the link and inconsistency problems I mentioned above caused by radically changing an article without changing its name. There are different definitions of the Australian continent, and imo anyone who links to "Australia (continent)" should be linking to a disamb page because the term is ambiguous, even if it does commonly refer to the mainland. The article about the Australian mainland should be called Australia (mainland), which is unambigous. This maintains a neutral stance, and avoids the problem of changing the information about the boundaries of the world's continents that we give out on Wp.

Therefore I reaffirm my vote for the compromise suggested by Hesperian. But whatever we do, if it is a major change, then the edit summary should include the words "see talk page discussion", making it immediately clear that the matter has been discussed. Viewfinder 08:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Times Atlas reference is interesting but concerns Australasia (in name and meaning) so doesn't address the point I made. Nurg 11:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken about the edit summary. I'll try to remember that. I'm sorry for throwing you a curve ball with the edit summary and the Seven Summits situation - it was of course unintentional. I'm keen to resolve this fairly quickly so I think I'm ready to agree to disagree. I don't favour Hesperian's compromise overall, however it does not have any factual inaccuracy so I do not oppose it strenuously either. I would not want to take responsibility for implementing it but if someone else does, I will not revert it and we would see how it pans out. I still worry that there may be some fish-hooks in it and I may wake up in a sweat tonight and change my mind, but how does this sound as a compromise process:

1. Reinstate my major edit to Australia (continent), as an interim step. I am happy to take responsibility for this but there's nothing to stop someone else.
2. Cut and paste the content to Australia (mainland) and
3. Replace it at Australia (continent) with a disambig page.

Someone other than me would do 2 and 3. Is this a goer? Nurg 11:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you do, I will do nothing more until I have allowed 48 hours so that other parties interested in the discussion can come in. Viewfinder 12:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not having read this entire section in detail - just the 1, 2 and 3 above - I'd just like to say please do not cut and paste the content into a different article, just yet. I remember reading (possibly in the Signpost) that there will be some history-maintaining way of splitting pages very soon. -- Chuq 12:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Chuq, but if step 1 is carried out then, unless the case is made against them someone who has read the section, steps 2 and 3 should go ahead too, not left to await some indefinite system modification. If 2 is carried out, edit summary links to the destination and sources of the material cut and pasted will be created, so I do not see the problem. Viewfinder 12:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian article

With all due respect to Nurg:

The two Wikipedia articles about the Commonwealth of Australia and Australian continent are reasonable articles about the political State and about the geographic region. There is no reasonable basis to create 2, 3, or 50 sub-articles about the million different ways you may personally want to re-define the region.

For example, there is NO article about contiguous continent of Asia to exclude Japan from its continent; nor about contiguous continent of Europe to exclude Britain and the city of Venice from Europe because they are surrounded by water. Your concept of contiguous continents is not shared by the world community, English language community this edition is written for, nor by the geographic or any science community.

Also, trying to exclude Papua from the Mainland in a geographical article about the Australian continent is scientifically indefensible. The two land masses are only separated by transient high sea levels; the two masses share a common biosphere; both contain endemic species which are globally accepted as being 'Australian'. i.e. the long nose echidna and Wallace Wallaby are only found in New Guinea, yet the world accepts that echidna and kangaroos are only indigenous to 'Australia' - the region, not the State.58.107.15.245 14:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an article about the contiguous continent of Europe - the article is Continental Europe. All the continental landmasses and the 175 biggest islands (more than 175 actually) have Wp articles about them with one exception - the mainland of Australia. It is not only reasonable to have an article about the mainland of Australia - it is an anomaly for there not to be one. Nurg 05:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no Contiguous continent of Europe article - and the British misnomer article Continental Europe including Sicily and other Continental islands is still a stub. The English language term Continental Europe might be in common usage, but the Europe article is still the one that talks about the region's geology, biology, history, etc.58.107.15.245 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide verifiable, reputable references for the assertion that "Australia" is the name for the region, or even for the single Pleistocene landmass. Ballard (1993)^[2] is, to my knowledge, the main work on the nomenclature of the Pleistocene landmass. He surveys the use of a number of names, past and current, including Australasia, Greater Australia, Sahul and Meganesia. Unless I have missed it, he never mentions the use of "Australia" for it - the nearest is Greater Australia. Regarding that term, he follows White and O'Connell (1982)^[3] in saying it tends "to subsume the whole into one part, Australia ..." and adds, "the implicit image of New Guinea as a northerly extension of the Australian landmass is open to the charge of cartographic imperialism" (Ballard, p. 20). More recently, Denoon (2005) said, "Scholars refuse to call this lost continent Greater Australia (or Greater New Guinea)"^[1] If these scholars reject "Greater Australia", they certainly won't be using "Australia". When it comes to the present-day lands, there are biologists who use names like Meganesia (eg Filewood (1984)^[4] and Flannery (1994)^[5]) and Australinea (Dawkins (2004)^[6]) and not "Australia". If, as you imply, "Australia" is the generally accepted term for the region, I have been missing a big part of the picture and would like to see reputable references. Let's work together to explore the literature and discern the full picture.

Because the article is not exclusively about the Pleistocene period, but subject to there being enough content such articles dealing with specific periods would certainly be suitable under such names with links from the generic region / continental article.58.107.15.245 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I made 2 major changes 2 days ago and one was reverted which has created the silly situation where we have 2 articles on the same topic. As it may take time for people to present references, I have reverted my other change in the interim. If convincing evidence is produced that my changes were incorrect I will of course abandon them. If not, I expect that I will reinstate them, with the possibility that someone will follow with Hesperian's compromise. Nurg 11:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I suspect Nurg may have been motivated by a mistaken desire to justify New Zealand's separation from the Australian continent. He was correct that New Zealand is considered to be part of the Pacific and not part of the Australian continent; but for very good reasons. 1) New Zealand is approx. 1000 miles away from the Australian mainland, 2) the part of the Indo-Australian plate connecting the two is over 1km below sea level, 3) I may be wrong but my current understanding is that New Zealand is a geologically young country created by the Australian and Pacific plates colliding and has never directly shared its geology with the Australian mainland; and 4) New Zealand had been colonized by a Polynesian people ( Maori ) where as the whole of the Australian continent and its islands were Melanesian (the first French charts marked Australia as part of 'Melanesia' - but this seems to have become unpopular after federation and today most people think Melanesia only referred to the other islands).

Papua and Tasmania on the other hand are ancient parts of the original landmass, although Papua like New Zealand is being pushed upwards as the plate moves north.58.107.15.245 15:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again - my only goal is to provide you with information in the geological and tectonic context. New Zealand is, for the most part, geologically young, although rocks as old as Cambrian (540 million years) are known. Strata older than 100 million years do have affinities with both Australia and Antarctica [23]. So important parts of NZ are old, and continental; the volcanoes are indeed related to the collision between the Indo-Australian and Pacific plates, and are essentially relatively recent island arc rocks. Cheers Geologyguy 15:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked out two more atlases from my bookshelf, as well as several internet sites. The general pattern was as follows:

• Those authorities which supplied maps that divided the world up into continents, showed a continental area including Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand and the islands in between, as shown on the map at the top right corner of continent. They called this "Australasia" or "Oceania" but not "Australia".
• Those authorities that listed the continents but showed no map generally included "Australia". Further details ducked the questions of New Guinea and New Zealand, and it was not clear whether or not these authorities supported the inclusion of these islands within the continent they referred to as "Australia".

It therefore seems that Nurg has a point when he suggests that the name "Australia" for any continent that goes beyond the CA is unverifiable. If we take his point then there will need to be changes. But the idea of overlapping continents does not make sense to me. If we uphold the concept of a continent "Australia" covering only the Australian mainland, how will we re-color the above mentioned continent map without generating confusion or contradiction? It's easy for the sources that do not supply illustrative maps, but Wikipedia does this and rightly so. A solution might be to create an "Australia (mainland)" article on the lines of Nurg's Australia (continent) article, hope we can agree on a name for a continent covering both Australia and New Guinea, and exclude completely New Zealand and other islands that, tectonically, belong to none of the generally recognised seven continents. Maybe we could also still create a kind of disamb page, similar to the one suggested by Hesperian but without stating the Australia (continent) can have a wider meaning, to explain the situation.

Hope this helps. Viewfinder 19:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs to be done with the first map at Continent. The caption says "regions of the world based on the ... continents". The purple region is neither the Aust mainland nor the A-NG continental shelf - it's all of Oceania. So one can be thinking of any one of the multiple definitions of continent and the map and caption will remain correct. Nurg 09:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No-one has yet disputed that there is a considerable amount of 'political correctness' and/or other undue long term influence on the academic community; my concern of which would be greatly reduced if the world's largest mine and several of the world's most influential corporations such as Bechtel, Exxon, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, and other bodies did not have a vital vested interest concerning New Guinea's continental status.

- I think it could be argued that "Continents" is a matter of human perception rather than actual scientific delimitation ; however, I put forward the concept that the "Continents" are based on human perception of scientific delimitation of these major regions; which is natural because the human mind works by association or in other words by trying to catalogue things. On a map it may be easy to claim Japan is not part of Asia, but people familiar with its people or looking at its proximity to China find it difficult to say.

- New Guinea too shares biology, geology, and human habitation with the rest of Australia; even after the Europeans arrived these two land masses shared biology and indigenous Melanesian populations who were then claimed to be part of European colonies. The Europeans didn't care that they had not explored either territory and had no more idea what was over the Blue mountains than they had about what was 20 miles inland from New Guinea's coastline. The only fundamental difference from the mainland came about after 1960; the western half nearly got global recognition as a Melanesian State until with US help Indonesia was able to claim that half as part of 'Indonesia' -- which is the real problem, because Indonesia claims to be a 'Asian' nation. Which conflicts with the human concept of Continents being geological instead of political.58.107.15.245 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of 'continent of Australia'

(This section was copied from Talk:continent to hold the discussion together. Viewfinder 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

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

Hi Chuq, can you supply a verifiable source in support of your claim that the term "continent of Australia" is correctly used to describe the area you mention? If you can, then we can stick with the status quo and save ourselves the bother of making changes. Viewfinder 10:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. Australia (continent)? Just to clarify - I'm not arguing between the definitions of "Australia" or "Australia plus New Guinea" or "Australia plus New Guinea plus Pacific Islands" - I am arguing that it DOES include Tasmania. From a quick google search, the following links agree with this: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] In fairness I should point out the following link disagrees: [29] but I believe it to be wrong. "Australian mainland" is the only term that I have heard used. -- Chuq 11:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

It's time for me to take a back seat. I'll accept any agreement you guys down under can come to. Viewfinder 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Viewfinder. Just as "continent" has multiple meanings, "continent of Australia" (or variations of the phrase) has multiple meanings. The sites Chuq cites are of varying quality. For an encyclopedia we should use the more scholarly sources where possible. A weather forecast site, for example, doesn't really cut it for me on this topic. The key word in the continent article is "may" - in other words, this is one of multiple meanings. So I don't think it is incorrect. Interesting to hear though that the popular Tasmanian view is that you're on continental Australia (if that's what you're saying). Nurg 10:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Tasmanian view is that the "rest of Australia" is known as "the mainland", not "the continent". I and most Australians are entirely familiar with the UK's use of the term "continent" to refer to the part of Europe which is France/Spain/Belgium/Netherlands/etc. But if you used the term "the continent" in Tasmania or anywhere else in Australia, to refer to Victoria/South Australia/New South Wales/etc in the same way, people would look at you with a blank expression. "The mainland" is the usual term that is understood by all. The external links I provided above were the first hits I found on google simply to demonstrate "common usage" which is what the specific paragraph is discussing - although, a couple of them are .gov.au domains which should imply some sense of being "official". -- Chuq 11:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original proposed name for the Commonwealth

Well, this discussion has had its fair share of points for and against what exactly constitutes the continent of Australia. How different it might have been then if New Zealand had been persuaded to join the federation and the original proposed name (Commonwealth of Australasia) kept. This may or may not have any bearings on the perpetual argument over whether or not New Guinea is considered to be a part of the continent, but one argument constantly being thrown about is that Australian school children are taught that their country is an island and a continent onto itself. I rather doubt that what is being taught to pre-schoolers and children just starting full school can be considered any more authoritative than the most basic principles of physics and chemistry. However, it would be interesting to know whether or not these same school children are taught about the federation process and if they are taught that it was actually a New Zealander delegate (Captain William Russell Russell) who proposed a change to the new nation's name, from the "Commonwealth of Australasia" to the "Commonwealth of Australia", indicating his preference for New Zealand to withdraw interest in the process [30]. Had New Zealand joined there would have been no confusion over the name of the state/country and the name of the continent and unlike the case of the United States of America and the American continent or continents (depending on your points of view) there isn't a plethora of countries on the continent of Australia. Just one (Australia itself) according to what school children are taught, or three (Australia, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia) if the geological/geographical view is taken. By contrast there are over 20 countries, other than the USA in North America alone and over 30 countries (other than the US) in the Americas as a whole. And those figures don't take into account dependent territories. I agree with the assessment that the island of New Guinea (as well as other nearby islands) are a part of the continent of Australia, based partly on the continental shelf. Some may disagree with this, but then that beggars the question as to why the British Isles are considered part of Europe (they lie on the same shelf) but New Guinea cannot be considered part of Australia. Also what of Greenland and North America (or the Americas)? Or Madagascar and Africa? Or the Japanese archipelago and Asia? Or the Falkland Islands and South America? And Iceland and Europe? Some of these islands (e.g. Iceland and Madagascar) don't lie on the same continental shelf but are still considered parts of the continent by association.72.27.175.32 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

People are also confusing, and have been confusing again and again throughout the entire debate, geology and geography. Now to you rock-choppers we biogeographers habe little use except to move away the quaternary dust film, it is true ;-) Anyway, the issue is fairly simple:

• geologically a continent extends from (major) plate boundary to (major) plate boundary
• geographically a continent is marked by surface features. Such as rivers, mountain ranges, or the sea.

Thus:

• geologically, Europe is probably not a continent but part, perhaps a subcontinent, of Eurasia.
• geographically, Europe stretches W-E from the Atlantic to the Urals.
• geologically, India is a continent that recently docked to another.
• geographically, India is a subcontinent, stretching N-S from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean.
• geologically, the Kerguelen Islands are the tips of a volcanic mountain range on an otherwise submerged continent
• geographically the Kerguelen Islands are just that - islands.

Thus,

• geologically, the Australian continent is not identical with the Commonwealth of Australia but contains the entire continental-crust landmass, above water or not.
• geographically, the Australian continent is essentially identical to the mainland of the Commonwealth of Australia and does not include New Guinea.

Though I still think it would perhaps be better to move to Sahul. It is the oldest term, and arguably the most justified because it refers to a now-sunken part of the continent, clearly showing "there's more to it than just the dry land of our time"

Did anyone read the etymology article? What does sahul (or whatever) mean? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If Australia is a Contienent...

And that continent includes New Zealand, New Guinea, etc. then are people from those countries Australians as well? I would love to hear what a New Zealander answers me if I called him Australian.

Some people say: "Yes, Australia is a continent, but NZ is not part of it" then what is NZ part of? Asia? I mean every single country has got to be located in some continent right? so again are New Zealander Australians as well? Supaman89 19:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. There's absolutely nothing to demand that every country (a political designation) needs to be located on a continent (in a geological, or even common, sense). Possibly you are confusing 'continent' with 'geopolitical region'; NZ, Fiji, Kiribati etc would hardly be considered in any sense 'part of' the Australian continent, but instead would easily be considered as part of the Oceania region. Geologically, NZ is generally and in any event considered part of the separate and mostly submerged 'former' continent Zealandia. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)