Talk:List of countries by continent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Dependencies, protectorates, etc 2 Accepted use of terms 3 ==Where is Russia?== 4 Svalbard and Jan Mayen - Longyearbyen (Norway) 5 x-continent systems 6 Proposal of improvements to this list 7 Americas 8 transcontinental countries 9 Name 10 Republic of Macedonia 11 Subantarctic islands 12 Suggestion of Name changing of this article 13 United Kingdom breakdown? 14 Malta

[edit] Dependencies, protectorates, etc

Someone's been purging these from the list. Is there a really good reason for this?

[edit] Accepted use of terms

Please limit continent-names to terms which are in widespread enough use to merit their own WP article. Afreurasia, Eurafrasia, etc, are not widely accepted as terms, even though there are 4-continent systems which suggest various names for that aggregation of Africa, Europe, and Asia as a single continent. see Afreurasia, Eurafrasia, etc.

[edit] ==Where is Russia?==

Is it too big to fit a continent? :) -- ChongDae 16:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Definetly in Asia.

Definitely not. It's in Eurasia or, if you prefer, partly in Asia and partly in Europe but mostly in Asia. Jimp 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Svalbard and Jan Mayen - Longyearbyen (Norway)

I find it strange that this is on the list. I think we should keep to souverign states. Otherwise the list should be very long... Actually I think it is misleading to find it on the list.

[edit] x-continent systems

I think we should ditch this commentary at the beginning of each section. We are essentially using the most liberal breakdown of continents which should, in theory, make the most people happy. All the specifics about how different groups of people classify the world into continents is covered in detail at continent and doesn't need to be repeated here. Ben Arnold 22:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the commentary and written a new beginning of the article. Chanheigeorge 02:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal of improvements to this list

1. Sovereign countries in bold, dependent territories in italic.
2. Removing country names in native langauages. (There is already a list of countries and capitals in native languages)
3. Moving sovereign nations of dependent territories from after the capital to after the country.
4. Use templates with flags, such as  Argentina.

Example (South America):

•  Argentina - Buenos Aires
•  Bolivia - Sucre (official capital), La Paz (seat of government)
•  Brazil - Brasília
•  Chile - Santiago (official), Valparaíso (legislative)
•  Colombia - Bogotá
•  Ecuador - Quito
•  Falkland Islands (Overseas territory of United Kingdom) - Port Stanley
•  French Guiana (Overseas department of France) - Cayenne
•  Guyana - Georgetown
•  Paraguay - Asunción
•  Peru - Lima
•  South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (Overseas territory of United Kingdom) - administered from the Falkland Islands
•  Suriname - Paramaribo
•  Uruguay - Montevideo
•  Venezuela - Caracas

Chanheigeorge 03:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Good job! My only concern is that the bold names look a bit busy, I believe it's not considered good style to use a lot of bold in typography. What about:

Example (South America):

•  Argentina - Buenos Aires
•  Bolivia - Sucre (official capital), La Paz (seat of government)
•  Brazil - Brasília
•  Chile - Santiago (official), Valparaíso (legislative)
•  Colombia - Bogotá
•  Ecuador - Quito
•  Falkland Islands (Overseas territory of United Kingdom) - Port Stanley
•  French Guiana (Overseas department of France) - Cayenne
•  Guyana - Georgetown
•  Paraguay - Asunción
•  Peru - Lima
•  South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (Overseas territory of United Kingdom) - administered from the Falkland Islands
•  Suriname - Paramaribo
•  Uruguay - Montevideo
•  Venezuela - Caracas

Ben Arnold 02:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll refrain from using bold at this moment, even though they're used in many similar lists, such as List of countries. Chanheigeorge 07:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just compared with that page. I think the flags make a difference. The level of contrast when you have both flags and bold text starts to interfere with reading. I'd choose one or the other. I like the way you use templates to get the flags and I don't think it's important for independent countries to stand out. But that's just my opinion! Ben Arnold 23:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I definitely like the flags but also like the bold text, as its more apparent. E Pluribus Anthony 01:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Americas

There should be North America and Latin America.

Those two areas overlap. Perhaps you meant Northern America and Latin America plus various other islands? //Big Adamsky 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither Northern America nor Latin America are continents. They are merely geographical regions. So we'll stick with North America and South America, which are continents. Chanheigeorge 01:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, C. E Pluribus Anthony 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] transcontinental countries

Should these not appear in both continents? I would say that Turkey for example, qualifies as European in that it is in the council of Europe, applying for the EU etc. so to put them solely in Asia is a bit inaccurate. Also Russia is only in the Europe section, which is clearly inaccurate as a ginormous part of its territory is in Asia.

Right now, we classify a country in one continent only, according to the UN Statistics Divison [1]. I understand the problem of this, but putting transcontinental countries in multiple continents can also be a problem. For example, parts of Egypt is geographically in Asia. Should we include Egypt as an Asian country too? Some of the boundaries between continents are very vague. So I kind of follow what an atlas will do, by putting a country in one continent only, e.g. Russia in the Europe section. If people think of it as necessary, we can put a disclaimer that says, "Some countries are transcontinental, but they are classified in one continent only according to the UN Statistics Division." Chanheigeorge 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why you put separately Guadeloupe and Martinique for example ? Isnt it just "France in the Americas"?and so it should be just one entity ?

In the same logic you do not name all islands of Netherland Antilles separately . Thank you. Otto

Guadeloupe and Martinique are also not administered togehter, and are separate entities (French overseas departments), while the Netherlands Antilles are one entity (at least for now). Chanheigeorge 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

This article does not list coutries by continent, rather it lists them by region. Shouldn't the page be moved to List of countries by region?--Peta 23:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Then what exactly are Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, and Antarctica? Chanheigeorge 00:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oceania is not a continent for starters. --Peta 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article continent should be pretty clear about the continent status of Australia/Oceania. Chanheigeorge 02:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Macedonia

In response to User:Chanheigeorge: 22:27, 9 December 2006 Chanheigeorge (Talk | contribs) m (There's only one country in the world called "Macedonia"; BTW, do I also always have to write "Georgia (country)" and "Republic of Ireland" too?)

Hi,

The given examples (i.e. Georgia and Republic of Ireland) are under the Georgia (country) and Republic of Ireland wiki-pages, respectively. For the first one, I would think that, the parenthetical disambiguation term can generally be disregarded since there is no apparent "danger" of misleading or misinforming a casual reader for the name of this state (let’s say due to an apparent dispute between the country with the US state). For the second one, the name "Republic of Ireland" is indeed valid but I guess after debates in its talk-page, there was a consensus within wikipedians to call this country as is when generally referring to it within WP articles and host it under that name. Regarding this and similar lists, I think that it is perfectly valid, practical, factually accurate and informative to call Georgia (country) as "Georgia" and Republic of Ireland as "Republic of Ireland"; but these types of arguments are, somewhat beside the point and have been debated numerous times as you might find out by the following clarifications.

For the (former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia there was a consensus - after very long and sometimes bitter - disputes, which unfortunately led to numerous edit-warring episodes but also enlightening discussions and debates, to call this country under its constitutional name (i.e. Republic of Macedonia); it was generally agreed to host it under that name (i.e. here: Republic of Macedonia and not under its original name here: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The Macedonia page, which then was hosting the Macedonia (region) article, was reserved as a disambiguation page (as you might know by now).

It was also agreed to use appropriate disambiguation terms within the text and/or notes when appropriate. For example under certain contexts, it would not be accurate, perhaps, to use only its constitutional name (i.e. "Republic of Macedonia") but also the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM) designation, with which the state is recognized by various countries and many international organizations (e.g. UN). This, on the other hand, does not mean that we (an independent project/encyclopeadia) have to follow any policies dictated by governments, organizations or institutions for neither prerogative and/or point of views (e.g. countries that recognized it as "ROM" nor countries/organizations that recognize it as "FYROM").

If you like to find out more I would kindly ask you to have a good look at the painfully long Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia and its archives. Another useful page in this regard might be the recently featured article Macedonia (terminology). Hope this helps.

Regards Ninio 02:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Here's my take on this issue.

1. I'm very much aware of all the naming disputes about countries such as "Macedonia", "Ireland", "Georgia", etc. I've gone through some of the discussions previously, but of course not all, which is humanly impossible. However, to avoid using these names simply because of disputes is to me unencyclopedic.
2. I have no problem with how the titles of their wiki-pages are named. This is guided by many guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and through long discussions, as it should be. However, I do not believe this completely dictates how they should be called in the various articles. To police that is, if not draconian, then most likely unenforceable.
3. The purpose of this article is to list the countries in the world by continent, while using their most commonly-used short names. It'd be potentially less confusing if we use their official names, but that would make the article less readable and useful. And with all due respect, for this article all I care is what the world call these countries, not what Wikipedians decide they should be called after numerous polls and debates. It is my belief that the most commonly-used short names of these countries are "Macedonia", "Ireland" and "Georgia" respectively, and not "Republic of Macedonia", "Republic of Ireland" (which is not even its official name) and (obviously) "Georgia (country)", even though the former names can be confused with other entities (but not with other countries). The usage of these names in this article is not an endorsement that they should be called these names, but simply a reflection that they are called these names. Chanheigeorge 07:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subantarctic islands

I strongly feel that the southern islands of New Zealand belong in Oceania, since they are much closer to South Island than Antarctica. As for the Prince Edward Islands, they are closer to Africa than Antarctica, but not by much, so the case for their association with Antarctica is much stronger, though I still have reservations on the matter. See the transcontinental country discussion for the debate. Heff01 16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion of Name changing of this article

Reason: the inconsistency of the title: List of countries by continent and description which also include the dependency.--Ksyrie 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom breakdown?

Should the UK not be broken down into its constituent parts (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) with their respective capitals? London is rarely recognised as capital of the UK.Zerostarsimpson 12:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

London is recognized as the capital of the UK (and England as well). It is where the head of state, the head of government, and the parliament resides. Chanheigeorge 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malta

Malta is geographically African, but geopolitically European. Historically it has been associated with Africa much longer than it has with Europe. I'd like to see some feedback before I make the move. See the transcontinental country page for more. Heff01 05:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what this page is currently set up as. The main classification uses the UN definition [2], which classifies Malta as European. While in the section Other definitions of continents, it lists Malta as geographically African using the continental shelf definition. Chanheigeorge 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)