Talk:List of islands by area/Archive 2

Letea - a sandbank in the Danube
I deleted the "island" Retea, which supposedly has a size of 1480 km2. Well, the "island" is actually called Letea, it is not an island, but a constantly changing sand bank - the largest of its kind in the Danube Delta. The size is probably not more than 300 km2. But is this an island at all? And should similar islands in rivers be counted as islands on this list? Antipoeten 17:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How to keep this page below 100 KB?
Does anyone have an idea about how to keep this page below 100 KB, which seems to be the absolute maximum? As it stands, there are few limitations to this topic: One could probably add 20-30,000 islands that are larger than the smallest one appearing here. It seems like somebody has added ALL the islands of the Faroe Islands and Greece. So what would be the size limit (if any?) And what makes an island "notable"? It is obvious that it would be too boring to add hundreds of Arctic and Antarctic islands with no human life on it. It is also obvious that only a few of Indonesia´s 25,000 islands would be interesting. Same goes for the 25,000 (or more) Pacific Islands. It is difficult to agree on a limit, It is also an article that is difficult to split up. So I think it would be fine if it could reach 100 KB without changing the idea about the page. And then, perhaps, discuss the matter when the page reaches 100 KB? Antipoeten 00:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One option might be to use a population or population density cutoff for the smaller islands. --Polaron | Talk 00:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the idea, but it would be hard to find population density data for many of these small islands, if even population data. One idea would be to delete for example islands under 20 (or 50?) km2 with a population less than 100. Just for a start. And just as a thumb rule: Some more important ones could remain. And then I am not so fond of the lake islands and river islands, I think all of these could easily be deleted. But then you would have to define an island here as a "salt water island". However, I will carefully start deleting some of the very small islands which are sparsely populated, or even unpopulated. Antipoeten 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think population is a red herring as this list is specifically about island size. As a simple suggestion I'd suggest removing ALL the islands below 100km2, or maybe even (very radical idea!) below 500km2 ???? That should cut the page size down by loads. I suspect not that many people are interested in a (incomplete) list of the smaller islands - they may want to know the size of a particular one, but then they'd look at its page, not this one.  Bazonka (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Over-represented countries/areas
There are several problems with this page. I already mentioned one: Some countries are over-represented because somebody seem to have added most islands within a country. This applies to the Faroe Islands, Estonia, Greece. Therefore some islands from these countries should be deleted to make room for other islands. Then, there is a problem with for example Tromøya of Norway. There are maybe 20-30 islands that are larger and more inhabited and therefore should be included to make the list "fair". Since this is not possible, I decide to delete this island. I also mentioned the uninhabited polar islands. Maybe they are over-represented in this page, because there really isn´t much to say about many of them. Their only "claim to fame" seems to be that they are big. I start the cleaning up by deleting some Chilean islands which I added a couple of days ago, and that don´t have their own reference word in Wikipedia. Antipoeten 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that there's no particular length limits, I don't see why we need to delete anything to "make room" for other islands - other islands can be added. john k 22:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This question came up because there is a maximum length of 100 KB. It would be nice if a page like this could exceed 100 KB, but then someone in charge will have to say it´s OK. Still, there would not be room for every island of the planet, so there has to be some kind of selection. My aim is to make the list more "representative", and at the same time readable and within the limit of 100 KB. It started as mainly a list of the world´s largest islands over 2500 km2, but it has developed into a more extensive page. I think there should be some principles of selection to prevent the page from being merely casual. Which the bottom section of the article still to some extent is. Antipoeten 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Should freshwater islands be excluded?
The way this page is developing, it seems unnecessary to me to include freshwater islands. The main source of this page is islands.unep.ch. This page deals with oceanic and continental islands only. Therefore I think "islands" here should be defined as "oceanic and continental islands". River islands are hard to define, and many of them are mainly sand banks or mud banks.

See http://islands.unep.ch/isldir.htm#General%20Description%20and%20Criteria%20for

Especially since this is mainly (but not only) a ranking of the largest islands, it seems absurd to include especially the river islands. These islands (especially in the Amazonas) can be incredibly huge, and yoy could not dream of finding data to include very many of them. Therefore a page including these islands will be very incomplete. I am aware that a list of this kind has to be incomplete, but its incompleteness would be much less annoying if one excluded the river islands (and also the lake islands). Especially since this page should not exceed 100 KB, it is important to limit the entries and/or split up the page. A way to split it up, would be to make a new page including only freshwater islands. This would be rather incomplete, but some problems with this page will be solved. Antipoeten 00:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite a few lake and river islands are very large and quite notable (and sand and mud banks do not fall in this category - it's debatable whether they should be termed islands). There are, however, not so many of this size and importance that removing them would significantly reduce the length of the overall list.  Where we can find reasonable data, we should include all islands of a reasonable size.  I'd rather see all islands below a certain size removed; they could instead be included in national or regional lists.  We already have a list of the British Isles by area; similarly, we could have a list of European islands by area or perhaps a list of Polynesian islands by area. Warofdreams talk 21:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree on this - what about deleting for example all islands below 5 km2 for a start? Antipoeten 14:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Should atolls be included?
Atolls are clusters of small islands/islets, not single islands. I therefore doubt if they should be included here, and I therefore want to delete some atolls (which I posted myself): Enewetak, Kwajalein, Majuro, Kiritimati, Teraina, Tarawa, Funafuti, Starbuck Island, Vava´i, Tabuarean. Maybe there should be a separate list for largest atolls? Antipoeten 13:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I later included some atolls, but I think it is wrong having them since the list should be for single islands only. I therefore remove 15 atolls from the list. Antipoeten 22:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I added South Island of the atoll Aldabra since I found the area of this specific island. Antipoeten 02:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Montague Island
There is an entry for Montague Island with an area of 722km2/279mi2 listed as part of the US. When I click on the link, however, I'm sent to a tiny Australian island with the same name. I searched for a US island with the same name and there is one in Alaska, but it is listed as 790km2, so I'm not sure it's the right one. Any idea where this island is supposed to be? –Taranah 15:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The island in question is the one in Alaska. It is now changed to Montague Island (Alaska) so it should be easier to find. The listings of area in this page is difficult. The source to most of the islands is this site: http://islands.unep.ch/ITT.htm#441 It might not always be correct, but it will be hard work to change all islands to the "correct" area. According to this site the area of this island is 722,3 km2. You will always find varying figures concerning land area. An expert of the field should start cleaning up, because the figures here should ideally correspond with the Wiki-articles on the islands. But then again, often Wiki is wrong. Antipoeten 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to list continental landmasses?
This is an article about islands, so I´m not sure why we would have to list the continental landmasses? It should be obvious that Australia and Antarctica are continents and therefore do not belong here. I suggest deleting this section, but I will not do it unless others agree. Antipoeten 22:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. We've already had long discussions on whether the two could count as islands.  I think that listing them as continental landmasses, with an explanatory note, is a useful compromise. Warofdreams talk 00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hinchinbrook Island
To those who change Hinchinbrook Island from USA to Australia: The Australian island smaller than the one in Alaska, USA. The Alaska island is about 445 km2. The Australian island appears to be 399 km2. I will now add both of the islands to avoid any more misunderstandings.Antipoeten 17:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dakhin Shahbazpur Island/Bhola Island
It seems as if Bhola Island is the most commonly used name of this island, which is the largest of Bangladesh. See: http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzx.html It also seems like it is bigger than is stated in the wikipedia list (1585 km2). The island was 6400 km2 in 1965, but was eroded down to a half of this in 2005. This site states that the area today is 3,403 km2. http://pxweb2.stat.fi/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=islands&ti=Worlds+Largest+Islands&path=../Database/International%20statistics%20database/7.%20General/Geography/&lang=1 I have therefore changed the area of this island. I didn´t change the name, but added Bhola Island as alternate name.Antipoeten 01:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I found some more information about Bhola Island here: http://www.bdix.net/sdnbd_org/world_env_day/2004/bangladesh/document/Inventory_full.pdf. From this quote it seems to have two different area figures, both 1440,62 km2 and 3403 km2. I am not sure what this refers to, but I chose to change the island back to 1440,62 (1441 km2). Instead I change the name to Bhola Island.

BHOLA • 1. Bhola Administrative Identity: It is the largest Island in Bangladesh. It consists of 386 Villages, 347 Mauzas, 58 Unions and 7 Upazilas. Char Fession, Bhola Sadar, Burhanuddin, Lalmohan, Manpura, Daulatkhan and Tajumuddin are the upazilas of this largest island. It became a Sub-division during British Regime in the year 1845 as Shahabazpur. At that time it was part of Noakhali and afterward transferred to Barisal in 1869 and renamed as Bhola in the year 1876. Again, this Bhola was upgraded into district in 1984. Bhola originated from the name of an old boatman, Bhola Gazi who was well-known to the locality around the year 1845. Area:  144062 ha. / 1440.62 km2 Perimeter: 212.50 km. (EGIS, 1996) 340348 ha / 3403.48 km2, of which 113346 ha is riverine and 16540 ha is under forest. Antipoeten 03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The larger area (3,403) refers to the entire zila of Bhola, which includes internal waters, as well as parts of adjacent islands. The island itself is, I believe, what the smaller figure (1,441) refers to. --Polaron | Talk 04:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As this site shows Bhola Island must be much larger than 1441 km2, but a little smaller than 3403 km2 because the island district also comprises some smaller islands. http://banglapedia.org/HT/B_0489.HTM Antipoeten 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But you can clearly see from the map that the district borders enclose a huge amount of water. I would say that the main island is more like half of the district area, and not just "a little smaller". --Polaron | Talk 12:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to think that this site might be the more accurate (ca.3200 km2). But I will not change it until I get more information. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-05zzx.html Antipoeten 00:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Latady Island
I added Latady Island, and island in the Bellinghausen Sea, Antarctica. The Wikipedia article on this island says it is 3,300 km2. However, I don´t know if to trust this information, so I decide to delete it. According to the rough measures of this list,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_and_sub-Antarctic_islands

the island is just 700 km2. By looking at a map myself I think it is much larger than this. But until I get better information I delete it. This uncertainty also applies to other islands in the Bellinghausen Sea, such as Spaatz Island (this island is on the list with 4,100 km2, which is uncertain) and Charcot Island (this island should be on the list as it is 1,000-1,500 km2 according to the French Wikipedia article on the island). Rothschild Island and Smyley Island are also large islands which should be on the list. Does anyone have more information on these islands?Antipoeten 09:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The value for Latady Island looks suspicious; the rest of our article is from the USGS (see WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica/L1), but the area figure was added separately, without a source, by User:Foxtrot (who appears to have mostly edited on the Polish Wikipedia, so it is possible that they have access to a source in Polish). Warofdreams talk 00:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Guest Island/Guest Peninsula
Guest Island is a peninsula. I therefore delete it from the list. See:

http://aadc-maps.aad.gov.au/aadc/gaz/display_name.cfm?gaz_id=126014 Antipoeten 09:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic islands
About this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sub-antarctic_islands Even if the area of some of these islands are just rough estimates from a map, I think it would be wrong not to include them on the list. (Except for Guest Island, which is a peninsula.) I therefore include the islands found on this list, even it the estimates may be wrong. Feel free to correct the estimates if there are any better sources. Antipoeten 16:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Åland Main Island
I changed the area of Fasta Åland (Åland mainland), but now I see that the area of this island is actually 1,010 km2, so I change this back. The "islands" of Eckerö and Lemland are considered as part of Åland Main Island, so I delete them from this list.Antipoeten 17:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would change this back, according to this site: http://personal.inet.fi/koti/kauko.huotari/saaret.htm, if it wasn´t for the fact that all Finnish islands under 100 km2 are now deleted. Antipoeten 23:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Finnish islands
It appears that the island Kerimäensaari, also called Samusalo or Sääminginsalo technically is no a true island. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sääminginsalo I therefore remove it. I also chose to remove all Finnish islands smaller than 100 km2. This means that all Scandinavian islands (Norway, Finland, Sweden) are excluded from the list. Instead the Scandinavian islands 50 km2-100 km2 should be posted to this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_islands_by_area This is due to the fact that the article is now too long.Antipoeten 10:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I now want to delete the Finnish freshwater islands that I posted. The largest (Soisalo) will still be standing. The others can be found in the list above. Antipoeten 02:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that the Wikipedia page on Sääminginsalo has been changed. According to present Wikipedia this still is the largest true island of Finland. The island has now been added to the list by 80.177.122.111, which I think is ok. Antipoeten (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Isla de los Estados
Appears twice as of elpincha 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

I removed the duplicate.Antipoeten 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fyn/Funen
When someone changes the Danish island Fyn to Funen that is ok, but then it should also be Zealand instead of Sjælland.Antipoeten 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exclude islands smaller than 10 km2?
There has been a discussion about the exclusion of smaller islands from the list. The reason for this is the fact that the article exceeds the normal maximum standard of 100 bytes. The page is now almost 110 bytes. Since it would be impossible to make a complete list including all such small islands I vote in favor of excluding all islands smaller than 10 km2. Islands smaller than 5 km2 are already excluded for the same reason. Antipoeten 11:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now removed islands under 10 km2 to make more space for larger and more important islands. I have also added a lot of larger islands, so the problem is still the same: Should the small ones be excluded? For example uninhabited islands under 50 km2? Antipoeten 04:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the sections have a disclaimer that they are not complete. For the smaller sizes (as large as 500 km2), it is explicitly stated that islands of certain nations are not included because they are too numerous.  It seems to me that if a list cannot be made complete, then the reason for the list is ipso facto not notable.  I would vote to delete any section of this article that cannot be made reasonably complete within a reasonable amount of space.  Some islands in such sections may be notable for various reasons, but they are not notable because of their area and thus don't belong in this article.  --BlueMoonlet 04:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think most parts of this article can be made "reasonably complete", which means 95-100% complete. Whereas the sections with very small islands cannot possibly be made complete. Even if this is not possible, I would vote to keep it, but maybe make some exclusions, for example islands under 20 km2. I agree that many of the islands here are "notable" just for their size, but then again, this is actually a list called "List of islands by area". Maybe one could make another list with "notable" islands? My thought is that in this case size is a major factor, and I think the list would be of interest to many, even if it is not complete. Antipoeten 02:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly I'm not saying this list shouldn't be here. But isn't the point of the list to allow a reader to see where a particular island ranks?  Then sections of the list that are far from complete (and, as you say, will never be complete) are simply misleading and should be excluded.  I would cut it off at 1000 km2, because the lists for smaller islands are admittedly biased towards European islands.  Also, if this page doesn't come from a small number of well-contained sources, but rather from you adding an island to the list whenever you find its area, then aren't you doing original research? --BlueMoonlet 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are obviously a lot of lists on Wikipedia which are never meant to be completed. This is such a list, and I think at the time it is the best available on the internet on this subject. The second best is this one: http:http://islands.unep.ch/Tiarea.htm I (among others) have done a lot of work to make the Wiki list a better list than this one. For example I have found lots of mistakes in the unep list: Islands that don´t´exist, islands that are really peninsulas, islands that are really archipelagos etcetera. A lot of island of this list have also changed names. If you consider the unep list, you will see that it is not an attempt to make a complete list, still it has been very useful to me in making research for this list. I think those of you who want a "complete" list should make one, but it has to be another list than this one. By the way, I see the need of excluding some of the smaller islands. I have now excluded those smaller than 20 km2. I also think islands under 25 km2 should be excluded, and some more non-European islands included to limit the bias towards European islands. Antipoeten 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided to move all European islands between 25 and 50 km2 to this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_islands_by_area. The European islands of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia smaller than 100 km2 have already been removed to this site. Antipoeten 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to argue for a section of islands smaller than 50 km2 at all, so I suggest it be closed. Antipoeten 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted all islands smaller than 50 km2 today. This is because it is impossible to get anywhere near a complete list. This also applies to larger islands (for example under 100 km2), but in this case the list will make more sense even if it cannot be completed (or even get close). This is both because the percent of completion is larger and because the list gives useful information in itself. Antipoeten 03:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided to delete all islands of Alaska, Canada, Russia and Chile under 100 km2, even if they have a population. It seemed hopeless to get anywhere near a complete list. Antipoeten 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pangkor Island
The flag of Pangkor Island was changed from Indonesia to Malaysia, which seems correct. But when checking the area of the island, it appears to be 22 km2 and not 2057 km2. So here someone must have made a great mistake from the beginning. I can´t find any Indonesian islands with this name, so I must delete it, since 22 km2 is not large enough to qualify for this page. Antipoeten 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an island of Indonesia with this size called Laut, but I think someone has redirected it to the Malaysian island. Laut might also be called Pangkor Laut or something similar. I therefore include it in the list as just Laut. Antipoeten 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Vanikolo Island
Vanikolo Island (173 km2) is really a group of several islands. The main island is called Banie, the second largest (close to it) is Tevai, and then there are the much smaller Manieve, Nomianu and Nanuga. It is hard to find the exact size of just Banie, but a rough estimate from map indicates ca. 150 km2. I start by making a change according to this and await a more precise figure. Antipoeten 21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nggela
Nggela (386 km2) is really an island group (also called Florida Islands). Main islands are Nggela Sule, meaning Big Island (also called West Florida Island) and Nggela Pile, meaning Small Island (also called East Florida Island). The area of Nggela Sule and Nggela Pile altogether seems to be 386 km2. It is hard to find separate figures for the islands, but a roughestimate from map indicates Nggela Sule: ca 230 km2, and Nggela Pile: ca 150 km2. I change the list accordingly. Antipoeten 01:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Prince of Wales Island
Prince of Wales island is actually located in South East Alaska. This is in the United States, not Canada, as stated in this article. POW is near British Columbia, but I know for a fact that the citizens of Craig and Hydaburg (communities on Prince of Wales} are American citizens, because I am related to many of them. Alaskamermaid 02:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several Prince of Wales Islands. The Canadian one is the 40th largest in the world, the U.S. one is the 97th largest, and the Australian one is much smaller.  All of them are correctly listed in the article. Warofdreams talk 03:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplication
There are some duplicates. Each duplicate points to the same main article page, but shows a different Km/Mi landmass.

Listed Twice
 * Niihau (Hawaii) AlanK 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mount Desert Island AlanK 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been fixed. Antipoeten 19:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ilhabela/Sao Sebastiao Island
This island has been included, and rightly so. But the area of 348 km2 refers to the entire archipelago. If I read this Portuguese site right, the size of the main island is 338 km2. http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilhabela Antipoeten 19:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

State / Province flags
A while back, for each US, UK, Canadian and Australian island, I added the flag of the relevant state or province etc. These flags were in brackets after the relevant country name. The primary reason I added these was to dissuade some users from changing UK flags to Scotland flags (with " (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Scotland)" everyone should be happy), but also because they provide generally useful supplementary information. It's certainly not irrelevant data. Earlier today, an unknown user added the flags for the Brazilian states. Great! However, this edit was almost immediately reverted by User:Polaron who stated "not needed". Technically this may be true - yes we can click on the links and go to the islands' pages to find out more - but I feel that this deletion detracts from the usefulness of the article. Polaron has now removed all non country flags, and in the process has somehow reverted the page to a strange mixture of old and new stuff. The newer country flag templates (e.g. 🇨🇦 ) are back in their old style (e.g. 🇨🇦 Canada ) and so consequently the page size has increased. I suspect there may well be other intermediate changes that have been lost with Polaron's editing. I am going to revert this to the latest version with the Brazilian state flags. Polaron (and others) - if you MUST remove this useful information, and I strongly hope that you don't, then please do it properly, and explain here exactly why you're removing it! If it's not a very good reason, then I may request that we go down the WP:THIRD route. The thoughts of others would be most welcome, and if the weight of opinion is against me then I shall back down! Bazonka (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed it properly in my most recent edit. The question is, why do only a few selected countries have country subdivision information? If you want to add them, please do so for all entries in the list. Please do ask for a third opinion on whether or not country subdivision information with flags is a good idea for this list. As long as the principle is applied consistently, I can live with it but I would prefer a cleaner table. --Polaron | Talk 22:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

All the flags on this page are pointless. You might try asking yourself 'what are the flags for?' Read WP:FLAGS and have a think about it.Cop 663 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of points here.
 * Firstly, why do only a few countries have country subdivision information? Fair question.  The ones that do/did were USA, Canada, UK and Australia, all large countries divided into commonly-known and well understood states/provinces etc.  I feel that this is useful additional information as it helps the reader to more precisely picture the whereabouts of an island.  E.g. if I was to read just "Banks Island, Canada" I wouldn't have a clue whether it was on the Pacific west coast, Maritime Provinces, or wherever.  But if I read "Banks Island, Northwest Territories, Canada" I'd instantly know that it's up in the frozen Arctic.  Of course, this assumes that I know where the different provinces etc are, but this is a reasonable assumption.
 * Now let's look at some examples of countries that don't have this added information. Mauritius: 1 island with 9 unfamiliar districts - there's no point in listing all of these; it would clutter the page and help no-one.  Ecuador: maybe you're not very familiar with the different provinces, but I bet you've heard of the one called Galapagos, and so including Ecuador's provinces might be useful (particularly for people who've heard of the Galapagos, but don't realise it's part of Ecuador).  So, it's horses for courses.  I'd include Spain's Autonomous Communities (e.g. Canary Islands, Balearic Islands); but exclude the Solomon Islands' provinces as they wouldn't help anyone to more precicely pinpoint the island's location in their mind (and besides which they're mostly the same as the island names anyway).
 * This page is work in progress and there is still plenty of stuff that can be added. Let's include province information for big countries where it might be useful (and I'm sure readers do find it useful), and omit it where it doesn't help.  Some bright spark already tried to add Brazil's provinces - admittedly I'm not familiar with these, but others are - to these readers the province data could quickly become useful information.
 * Perhaps putting a new "Province/State" column in the table would make it look less cluttered?
 * Second point, User:Cop 663's claim that "all flags on this page are pointless". I've read WP:FLAGS as suggested, and one thing jumped out at me... Point 2: "Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand".  Well, this is a table with a column about jurisdiction!  What's the problem?!?
 * The only other vaguely relevant bit in WP:FLAGS is the rule that states that flags should "help the reader rather than decorate". Maybe so, but in my opinion, a long table of only text and numbers is just plain dull!  A splash of colour helps presentation and draws the reader in - first impressions last!  And of course by looking at a well formatted list containing flags, a reader will much more easily be able to identify records for a country than they would by text alone. I'm sorry, Cop663, but I think your statement is wrong.
 * So in summary: I think that country subdivision information is useful if applied appropriately (and that's not one-size-fits-all); and that well displayed flag use makes an article more useable, and in this case it does not conflict with WP:FLAGS.
 * I'm going to reinstate the earlier version of the article (the one with the Brazilian provinces) and start to add extra province information. This will take time though - don't expect it to be complete straight away.  Please don't revert this without leaving a response here.
 * Bazonka (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you add the country subdivision information without the flags? --Polaron | Talk 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - Seems like a reasonable compromise. Bazonka (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - all state/province flags have been removed. Details for Spain, Ecuador, Mexico, Portugal and India provinces added.  Russia is a job for another day, and I will consider Indonesia too.  I don't think it's beneficial to do any other countries. Bazonka (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus
To the anonymous IP editor(s) who keep removing the information about Cyprus - please stop! Two nations have sovereign territory on the island of Cyprus - the Republic of Cyprus with 97%; and the United Kingdom, through Akrotiri and Dhekelia, its Sovereign Base Areas, with 3%. (Note that this is not the same situation as Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, which despite being controlled by the US military is still sovereign Cuban territory). Although this 3% of the island may not be much, it is not part of the Republic of Cyprus, and so must be mentioned in this article. Remember this article is about islands, not about countries. Secondly, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does exist (whether you like it or not) and has control over about 36% of the island. Although highly disputed and not internationally recognised, its presence definitely deserves a mention. Other international disputes are listed on this page - it is useful information and must stay. I don't know who is constantly vandalising this article, or what their agenda is, but they must remember that this article should not contain opinions or be a descripiton of how you want the world to be. It is a description of fact. If the UK or Turkey leave Cyprus, you can amend the article then. Bazonka (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me answer to your comments. The point of this webpage is (if I understand well) to show to what sovereign state each island belongs to. What you call Turkish rebublic of northern Cyprus is not recognized by UN or any country in the world except Turkey. A number of U.N. Resolutions, in particular, have repeatedly addressed the Cyprus situation in all its aspects. They provide, inter alia, for the withdrawal of the Turkish army (Resolutions 353/1974 of the Security Council and 3212/1974, 37/253/1983 of the General Assembly) and the return of the refugees to their homes in safety (Resolution 3212/1974 of the General Assembly, later endorsed by Security Council Resolution 365/1975). You should also know that the rebublic of Cyprus is not a greek state. The flag of the rebublic still represents oficially the whole island.

Now as for the UK bases, they represent 3% of the island territory. If you sum up the area of all the foreign embassies in the island, which is again sovereign territory of these countries, it is of the same order of magnitude. It is ridiculous to have at equal footing 97% of an island with a "big embassy". The proof of this, is the fact that nobody dared in this webapage to add Guantanamo of Cuba as a territory of the US. Although you claim a legal argument about Guntanamo not being american soil, both of us know the truth, which is that the US are the sovereign state on this base. However, everybody was rational here, so nobody considered a negligible portion of the island as separate territory worth mentioning. This rule should be also followed for Cyprus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.58.155 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Anonymous user (please register - it will give you more credibility),
 * This article is about islands and their size, it is not about who owns what. The country information is included as additional useful reference information.
 * I know full well that TRNC is unrecognised, illegal and impinges on the sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus. However, it exists.  It is there.  It is significant.  It would be utterly remiss not to mention it when describing the island (remember this article is about islands, not countries).  This article has never stated that TRNC should exist, just that it does exist - and its details are added as a footnote, so as not to imply anything more than that.  Details of other disputed islands are mentioned in this article - look at East Falkland and Iturup for example.  By all means reword the text if you think it's not clear enough, but you should not remove it - no matter how much you oppose Turkey's presence in Cyprus.
 * As for your case on the UK bases, I need to set you straight on a few facts of history. Guantanamo Bay is leased in prepetuity by Cuba to the US, whereas the UK bases were explicitly excluded from the territory of the Republic of Cyprus upon its independence from the UK in 1960.  So, Guantanamo Bay is part of the Republic of Cuba - it is just not controlled by it.  On the other hand, Akrotiri and Dhekelia have never been part of the Republic of Cyprus.  Their sovereignty, rightly or wrongly, has remained British.  This is not disputed, not even by the Cypriot government.
 * And your argument on them having the same status as embassies is laughable. The bases total 254km2 - this is probably bigger than Nicosia itself - so saying they are of "the same order of magnitude" as "all the foreign embassies in the island" is just nonsense.  Besides which, embassies have "extraterritorial" status, meaning that they are exempt from local laws etc., but they do not have sovereign status - this is retained by the host country.  So Akrotiri and Dhekelia are different.  They are not part of the Republic of Cyprus and so must be mentioned.
 * Bazonka (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This really seems like tiresome pedantry. TRNC need not be listed here - anyone clicking through to the article on Cyprus will come upon it soon enough.  The British bases are a footnote.  This is an article about the size of islands.  Keep it simple. john k (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A pedant? Me?  Well maybe.  However, I'd rather see something removed from an article because it's irrelevant, rather than because someone incorrectly believes it to be wrong.  I'm prepared to concede that maybe the reference to TRNC could be removed, but I strongly oppose removing the details of the UK bases.  254km2 is significant. Bazonka (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you might first want to deal with List of countries and outlying territories by total area, which includes Akrotiri and Dhekelia within Cyprus. That seems a much clearer instance than here, where it's much closer to irrelevance. john k (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To Bazonka: your arguments are self-conflicting. You state that you agree that TRNC has no legal status but you think it should be mentioned. On the other hand your argument why Guantanamo should not be mentioned is because "oficially" belongs to Cuba. Ok, "oficially" there is only one Cyprus, which is greek and turkish with the oficial flag that is presented here. Greek flags or turkish flags or anything else have nothing to do with the rebublic of Cyprus. You should at last understand that the flag of the rebublic of Cyprus does not represent the greek side, it represents both greek and turkish. It is the flag of the island, period! As for the british bases, you probably know there are american bases in almost all NATO countries. There are in Greece, Italy, Turkey and recently there will be in Kosovo, Albania etc. Everytime someone referes to these countries, should he mention that there are bases that are not controled directly by the state? It is ridiculus. Then, why don't we mention that there is more territory controled by the UN that the UK. Things are simple. There is an island called Cyprus and the country is also called Cyprus. the rest are irrelevant. I don't know your agenda, but don't try to make propaganda from this site.-Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.212.4 (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My agenda?? My agenda is to have correct facts on Wikipedia.  I really don't care whether Cyprus is Greek, Turkish, British or Brazilian.  I just want things to be shown as they really are.  No propaganda - just undisputed, and internationally recognised facts.
 * Your arguments about US airbases do not hold water. Airbases, embassies, UN Buffer Zones etc are the sovereign territory of the country they're in, and hence need not be mentioned.  But, uniquely, this is not the case with Akrotiri & Dhekelia - there is a very big difference between them and other foreign airbases.  As I explained in my earlier post, due to historic reasons they are legally not sovereign Cypriot territory.  (I am beginning to wonder if you know what the word sovereign means.)  Look at the CIA World Factbook (a US publication) - they are listed separately from Cyprus, whereas Guantanamo Bay is not mentioned at all.
 * And yes, I do think that TRNC should be mentioned (as a footnote) because of its sheer size. No other reason - however you'll see from my conversation with John K above that I'm prepared to back down on that one. Bazonka (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Bazonka, I totaly agree with Chris and John, mention of military bases is totally irrelevent, much more than the turkish claims, indeed. Sovereignity appears here just as a stupid word put by Britishs and Britishs only. If there was indeed sovereignity, there wouldn't be any problem with rent by respect to the republic of Cyprus, a rent that UK agreed (eventhough UK do not pay it, but for reasons not linked to sovereignity, just take a look at those reasons). If there were sovereignity, the laws would be British laws. If there were sovereignity, these 2 bases would be part of EU, but they are not, because the problem of sovereignity is all but settled. Do you also want to put a note saying "Soverignity is not recognised by the Republic of Cyprus" ? This is ridiculous. Last but not least, if there were sovereignity, there wouldn't have been such an agreement in 2002 between UK and Cyprus stating that UK can NOT use these lands for any kind of civil colonisation, taxes, air and shipping civil exploitation, etc... You speak of sovereignity, but it is just, and more important can ONLY be just, military bases ! Chris is right : put also the embassies, it is the same idea. Pyc 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.82.56 (talk)
 * Thank you Chris and Chris' friend (it's interesting how you both have IP addresses in Denmark). Please refer to Appendix A, Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus . Bazonka (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well bazonka it seems you also have friends in England! However, Akrotiri and Dekelia are not a country recognized by UN. It is a military base. The entry is about countries and not bases. The funny thing is that you try everywhere in wikipedia to pass Akrotiri as a country and you get erased not only by me. If Guantanamo or Okinawa is mentioned here, then Akrotiri should also. But since this is not the case, you cannot put Akrotiri and Dekelia. By the way there is also a RADAR antenna that is mentioned in the treaty between Cyprus and UK. Should we also mention it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.116.134 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NO because the radar antenna is on sovereign Cypriot territory. Guantanamo Bay is sovereign Cuban territory (despite Cuba having no control).  Okinawa is sovereign Japanese territory.  But as I repeatedly say - Akrotiri and Dhekelia are NOT sovereign Cypriot territory.  They are a unique special case.  (And no, they are not countries, they are an overseas territory of another country.) Bazonka (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your argument about Guantanamo. However, let me make a couple of comments. Although Akrotiri is british territory, its citizens are not entitled to a british passport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories_Act_2002 Second, 60% of the land of Akrotiri and Dekelia belongs to cypriot farmers. The law applied on the "citizens" of Akrotiri and Dekelia is not the british law, but as it stated in the Act 2002, the law should be as close as possible to the cypriot one. As an example, the three british soldiers that were responsible for the rape and murder of a danish tourist back in 1994, they were convicted and sentenced by the cypriot court and not the "Akrotiri court". The official currency of Akrotiri and Dekelia is the euro as in the republic of Cyprus and not the british pound. What all these indicate? Surely you are right. The bases are not territory of the republic of Cyprus. However, we can certainly conclude that they are just military bases. Apart from local greek and turkish cypriots, the population of these territories is just the military personel that serves there. My point was that I disagree on promoting military bases without stable population to the level of a state. Guantanamo and Okinawa are different cases you say. However, the cuban government has repeatedly asked for the base to be returned. Correct me also if I am wrong, but USA has not paid any rent the last 50 years. Cuba has lost control of the territory. Although you prefer to call this base as a rented one and Akrotiri as an owned one, there is not essential difference in practice. Since you quote the constitution of Cyprus, where the bases is stated to be under british control, I would like to remind you that the constitution also states that UK should support financially the republic in exchange. This stopped a few years after the birth of the republic with the excuse that since there are problems between the two communities of the island, the UK government would not know how to split the financial support. Now I think the comparison between Guantanamo and these bases should be more clear. The base were given as an exchange for financial support that ceased to exist soon after independence. If the character of this page is to consider air force bases at equal footing with sovereign states, I agree that these bases should be mentioned. However, since it is not done for other cases, I think it is irrelevant to mention the bases of Akrotiri and Dekelia at equal footing with the republic of Cyprus, exactly as when we refer to the island of Cuba, we do not put as an entry Cuba and the base controled by USA. As for the RADAR site, the constitution states explicitly that Cyprus should let UK have the antenna on the mountain. So, what kind of sovereignty is this when a state cannot decide if it wants the antenna or not. I assure you it is not sovereign territory of Cyprus. Of course it would have been ridiculous to call the antenna site as part of british territory, but it is right there in the constitution. Do we also have to mention it? I think military bases should not be mentioned. Chris
 * I agree that military bases should not be mentioned... per se, but Akrotiri & Dhekelia are not just military bases - they are overseas territories and hence for that fact, and for that fact alone, deserve to be mentioned. For the purposes of this article, the fact that they contain airbases is irrelevant, as are the other factors you mentioned regarding their laws, currency, suffrage, land ownership etc.  All very interesting but remember that this article is about the size of islands, with additional information about the countries that "own" them (whether directly or through an overseas territory).  Your point about the UK refusing to pay financial support for the territories is also not of relevance here - perhaps it indicates that Britain shouldn't own the land, but as the law stands at the moment, it does.  (And by the way, the USA does pay rent to Cuba for Guantanamo Bay, but Cuba refuses to cash the cheques.)  We are clearly not going to agree on this one - I'm going to request third-party arbitration (WP:THIRD). Bazonka (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Hi, I saw this on the WP:3O page. I am still reading this talk page and the article and trying to gain a bit more background. This is a very fascinating topic. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, from what I discern, the question is: if the 2 bases are part of the British Overseas Territories, should there be a reference to that fact in the list?
 * My opinions is that yes, there should be a mention that a part of the island is British Overseas Territory. From what I can gather, the bases are considered British territory. Since this is the case, there should be a note made indicating that X% of the land is British territory.
 * This was very interesting and I learned something new, btw, so thank you for bringing this up. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lazulilasher. Let's hope this brings an end to the edit war. Bazonka (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The 3rd guy is right. Since it is part of the constitution of Cyprus, there should be a reference to the british bases. His idea of stating the x% is cool. From what I figured out, x=3 and therefore it would be better if it is stated in the entry, just to make sure that one understands the size of the two different territories. From the discussion it is clear that there is one country and two military bases, and the entry should reflect their size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.116.199 (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've amended the Cyprus footnote to include the size percentages. Bazonka (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rene-Levasseur Island
The article states that this island is the world's largest artificial lake - in fact it was formed some 214 million years ago by a meteor impact, so should not be described as artificial.

See Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9-Levasseur

Tony (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It became an island in the 1960s when the crater was flooded to form a water reservoir. Before, two rivers were running south at the bottom of the ring valley, merging in south to become the Manicouagan river, and the middle of the crater had a dry connection with the rest of Québec in the north. LeQuantum (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ilha Tupinambarana
According to the Tupinambarana article, the island has been split into four sections by rivers. So, the island is in the wrong place in the list. Does anyone know the areas and names of the four bits? Bazonka (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Australia - Greenland
It seems to me that the attempts to delete Greenland as the largest Island are vandalism. If someone thinks that Australia should be considered an island and not a continent, this isn’t the way to go about getting that accepted.--Another-sailor (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm don't know if this is vandalism, or just an over-enthusiastic newbie who isn't thinking properly. Anyhow - the "Australia: is it a continent or an island" issue has been discussed to death here before - see the talk page archive. Bazonka (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There are outrages errors in this page " list of islands by area". First of all Austrialia IS an island, it is NOT a Continent for example like Africa. The Continent which Australia is part of is called Oceania ( Australia, New Zealand, Figi, Vanuatu etc etc). What is Australasia? Why you need to call something with a different and incorrect name!You guys need to start to write more responsably because at the moment some articles really sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.56.74 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia is NOT an island. It is a land mass, same as Eurafroasia and NOrth/South America. Dont blame me, i didnt define these things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.41.113 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed continent not island. Oceania is a region NOT a continent. Perhaps some geography studies would be in order. What I don't get about the paragraph in question is "... or merely part of a larger continent also called Australia". Huh?!!! Continental Australia is a subsection of the country Australia, just like the continental USA is part of but not the totality of the USA's borders. Remember Tasmania, Torres Strait Islands etc. As regards Australasia, maybe that's the future cultural version of Australia where Asian migrants outnumber the 'white' population as was proposed by one Malaysian PM. It could also be a variant of Oceania but more Oz specific. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oceania is not a continent but a region. Same goes for Australasia. Australia the continent includes Tassy & New Guinea. Australia the country encompasses most of the continent. The Australian mainland can also be called "Australia", is it an island? I'm sure some define it as such and others don't. J IM ptalk·cont 22:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To exclude Australia and even larger landmasses as "not islands" seems entirely arbitrary. But given that there is an argument over this, it seems more logical to just have an article entitled "List of landmasses by area" which would obviously also include all islands. If something is too large to be an island, the title of largest island is about as relevant as oldest person under 50.Bejjer (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is arbitrary. However, think of it this way: no one ever calls Greenland and smaller landmasses as continents. It is undeniable that Australia is sometimes called a continent. In keeping with the dictionary definition of islands as land masses surrounded by water that are not called continents, this arbitrary grouping seems reasonable and consistent with common notions. --Polaron | Talk 00:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Some dictionaries would define an island as an area of land surrounded by water, which would include all landmasses, so we can't really be in keeping with all dictionary definitions. If there happened to be a word for people under 6 feet tall, it wouldn't make sense to have an article ordering them by height. It would make far more sense to have an article ordering all people (let's not get onto the idea of having both articles). Likewise, and especially since continental landmasses are included for comparison, it makes far more sense just to have the article about all landmasses with no pointless distinctions.Bejjer (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically you may be right but there is a common notion for what land masses are called islands and islands alone (i.e. never called continents). There are many instances of artificial distinctions. As long as the introductory paragraph makes clear, there shouldn't be any confusion. --Polaron | Talk 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

List of islands by area
On the "List of islands by area" page: The island ranked 9th in size is shown as Vancouver Island. It should be Victoria Island. The link correctly takes you to Victoria Island information. Vancouver Island is correctly entered again at 43rd in size.

Sorry I don't know how to fix the error but hope someone who sees this will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.200.52 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Area of the Island Great Britain
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain: “Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles... It is surrounded by 1000 smaller islands and islets. It occupies an area of 209,331 km² (80,823 square miles).” This makes it smaller than Victoria Island in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another-sailor (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What really is the area of Great Britain? After all, various atlases and encyclopedias give England ca 50,000, Scotland ca 30,000, Wales ca 8,000. That's 88k, not 80.8k. I just did some casual calculations subtracting the largest offshore islands (Anglesey in Wales; Shetlands, Orkneys, Outer Hebrides, Inner Hebrides in Scotland), and I get 84,800 for the area of Great Britain, not 80,000. I found citations for the areas of all the offshore islands except the Inner Hebrides, so I estimated 1,500 sq mi (which is larger than the area of the Outer Hebrides). I suggest this needs to be investigated. Hurmata (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Area of Taiwan - New Britain
Taiwan's area in sq km is smaller than New Britain's, but in sq m it is larger. Something's wrong with the data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.33.158 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * By 'sq m' do you mean square metres ? Because then it would obviously be more than the sq km figure. 123dylan456 (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain - Victoria Island
In the list, GB is bigger than Victoria Island in square miles, but smaller in square kilometers. Can someone validate the numbers and conversions? Gwaptiva (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Flags
The flags here don't help user understanding of the article, they are far to many and as such we should Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate Gnevin (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course they are useful. See MOS:FLAG:
 * Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand.
 * They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of countries as many readers can more quickly scan a series of flag icons due to the visual differences between flags.
 * Bazonka (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The scan list idea doesn't fly when you've 4 or 5 flags on one line Gnevin (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They are still easy to see. Your opinion smacks of WP:IDL. Bazonka (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its nothing to do with IDL, how many user do you think come here and can recognise everyone of these flags ? Gnevin (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They would be able to identify the ones that they're looking for. Bazonka (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to see the removal of the flags. They seem decorative, as Gnevin says. --John (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they are useful. Please don't remove them  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.83.3 (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way would you say they are useful? Or did you say "useful" when you actually meant "pretty"? --John (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant "useful". They make it easier to find islands belonging to specific countrys 91.195.83.3 (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And the words beside them doesn't ? Gnevin (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's definitely easier to spot a flag in a list, rather than a word. I would imagine that dyslexic people would certainly find this easier.  See the points above from MOS:FLAGS. And what's wrong with making the article look pretty, as long as the prettiness doesn't detract from its usefulness (in this case it doesn't)? I really cannot fathom your attitude to this. Bazonka (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I really feel a sortable table would work so much better here Gnevin (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yes. But that wouldn't work very well for islands that contain more than one country. For example, if you're looking for Indonesian islands, then Borneo wouldn't be grouped with the others - it'll be up under the B's because its countries are "Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia".  I don't see how that would help. Bazonka (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to technical limitations ,islands with 2 or more counrties on or claiming them are repeated and are marked with a Y.

What do you think of this mock up, I've remove the subdivision info as its very cluttering and not needed in the list Gnevin (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think that is a dreadful idea. Having duplicates in the list will only make it more unwieldy and confusing.  No way.  And see the thread above about the usefulness of subdivisions. Bazonka (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it confusing compared too hundreds of flags (and subdivisions) people don't know. The above example quite clearly highlights whys some are duplicated and which are duplicated Gnevin (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you can't expect everyone to know every flag, but if they are looking for a particular country, they will know what the flag looks like. If they are interested in where a particular island is, the subdivision information may well be useful - if they're not familiar with the subdivision, then they can ignore it.  (There would perhaps be some merit, however, in moving the provinces to a separate column.)  The flags make the article look nicer - certainly much better than a dry list of words and numbers only.  I know this in itself is not a reason to retain them... but to some people they are useful.  Which is the best option of these two?: A useful article that looks crap, or a useful article that looks nice.  Obviously the second one - and that's what we have at the moment.  There is undoubtedly some scope for improvement, but your suggestion above is utterly, utterly retrograde.  You clearly have a problem with flags, but as I have pointed out before, this article is entirely in keeping with WP:FLAGS, in particular the clause referring to jurisdiction. Please take your WP:IDL elsewhere. Thankyou. Bazonka (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't consider your last point to be very civil . And the choise is not between a ulgy and useful article or a pretty and useful article. As a lot of people like me can't do the scan the list thing that many claim they can do with the flags however everyone can sort a table . As a compromise I'd suggest a sortable table as above with flags ,best of both worlds Gnevin (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for incivility. This was more from frustration than deliberate rudeness, sorry.  A compromise is clearly a good idea, but I'm not happy with the fact that data is being duplicated in your suggestion - surely this would create more confusion than the current format.  Perhaps there is a better way, but I can't think of one at the moment.  I will have a think. Bazonka (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem, also what do you think of using coord instead on the local subdivisions? Gnevin (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would help. Users would probably need to click on the coordinates to find out where they are.  They may as well click on the wikilink to the island's name, and this rather defeats the object of displaying the province/region names which should preclude users from needing to do this (assuming they have some prior knowledge of the countries).  See the thread about Province flags above for reasons why the province names are useful. Bazonka (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is an alternative suggestion, although I appreciate that it isn't particularly wonderful either: Problems are, the width of some of the columns is too narrow, so that (at least on my monitor) we have "Papua New" on one line and "Guinea" on the next. And the subdivisions are not necessarily aligned with the relevant countries. Perhaps some expert with tables can resolve these issues. Of course, we still have the problem of sorting alphabetically - the three Indonesian islands will not be grouped together. But, it does have the advantage that all the information is there. To be honest, I don't particularly like either your suggestion or mine. I really think the best option is to leave it as it is. Bazonka (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection
This page seriously needs some sort of protection - the amount of vandalism it gets is huge. Bazonka (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Australia (again), and Antartica
Seeing as my edits were immediately reverted, I will discuss them. Please argue with valid points, if you must. I will keep reverting otherwise, and seek arbitration.

Firstly Antarctica. I know this is a List of Islands, but the continents have been added, by others, for comparison. There was prior an obtuse note about Antartica, which references a pdf document. I checked this, and basically the note was saying in a very unclear way, that Antactica actually, if it did not have the ice sheet, would be a series of islands. My addition to this made this much clearer. It should be pointed out that these islands, if we could see them, would undoubatably be very high up the list. To ignore this point is to ignore a pertinent fact. And basically the information was there before, but not understandable. Now the same information is clearer. Or do you want to just delete the information ?!

Australia - it should be abundantly obvious to most editors of this page that Australia has caused a lot of confusion - is it an island or a continent ? Is the continent just the main island, or the continetal shelf, including New Guinea & Tasmania ? Does the Nation of Australia constitute an entire continent by itself ? These confusions seems unsolvable, with many people taking only one viewpoint and making kneejerk reverts. You cannot ignore this conundrum, and my addition was to clarify, without bias, the differing views. The revert has not clarified anything. If the Americas are one continent in the list, and Europe, Africa & Asia are one continent in the list, with their continental shelves, how can Australia only be the mainland island ? If you have list of continents, you should show the figures for one of the accepted definitions of Australia the continent ... like the details from the page Wikipedia has for Australia the Continent !! The revert not only reverted the figures, but reintroduced the confusion. You have to tackle the issue of Australia somehow, rather than just fudge it with incorrect figures, or hope it'll go away. As long as people think of it as an island, and some do, you have to discuss in the article why it is/isn't, and why it is not #1 on the following list. You can't just say "well its a continent, end of discussion, ignore the opposing views". Australia, whether you like it or not, is a case that needs a subheading, because in a list of islands, people are going to question its island/not an island status. Its just too bloody big (literally) to ignore ! The Yeti (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

See also Talk:Australia & Talk: Australia (continent). The Yeti (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the opening comments of the above, specifically "I will keep reverting otherwise, and seek arbitration.", if you keep reverting, especially if editors provide reasonable edit summaries such as this, you'll never reach arbitration. What you've proposed is edit warring and will likely result in you being blocked for disruptive editing or for breaching the Three revert rule. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a longstanding editor & know the rules. So far I've made just ONE revert, which I am entitled to do. I don't have to agree with someone else, and it takes two to edit war. I AM allowed others to independantly look at the changes. And anyway, we aren't near an edit war yet, and I come nowhere near WP:Disrupt, so your warning is jumping the gun. The revert to my entry was ill-explained, over-quick, and took NO condideration as to why I changed the article, hence my revert, and explanations here. If someone is to revert again, and not explain themselves here, who would be the one being disruptive ? Address the issues, not my wording. The Yeti (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the figures for continental landmasses include other islands, any more than the figures for islands include smaller surrounding islands. I reverted because your edit seemed confused about the purpose of this list.  If you can put together a referenced list of the area of landmasses on continental shelves, then that might merit an article, but this is not the place.  The existing solution is stable and has general agreement; your changes are confusing and inconsistent.  If, as your comments above suggest, you want a different note or approach to clarify Australia's status as an island and/or continent, or Antarctica and Greenland's status as probable groups of islands connected by permanent ice sheets, then please make the case for that.  Whatever the answer is, it doesn't involve creating confusion by adding a figure to the list with no connection to any of the others. Warofdreams talk 13:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Warofdreams. Bazonka (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The notes on Greenland and Antarctica were already there; and my personal opinion is that in a list of islands there should be some passing reference to the fact that these may be more than one island, covered by ice. Obviously some previous editor(s) thought this too. For Antarctica are you saying the existing "Antarctica is not a single land mass, but a number of land areas of much smaller area" is somehow clear ?! How can you read from that that it means means a lot of Antarctica is below sealevel ?


 * As for Australia, the list is still confused - the link for it under continents is to Australia (continent), but the area refers to just the mainland of Australia; and then says the continent consists of only one country (it doesn't, the continent is also Papau New Guinea and Indonesia - go read the continent article). The errors were already there before my changes, and they still have not been addressed. And the issue of whether mainland Australia is an island or not is still unresolved. And you do have to say mainland Australia, else which Australia do you mean ? The continent ? The big island ? The nation ? As advised above, read Talk:Australia & Talk: Australia (continent). In a list of islands, the possible biggest island in the world is like an elephant in the room ... no one wants to talk about it. As for the article being stable a) my changes never had a chance to see if they were stable b) being stable does not mean being correct & c) these issues have not discussed, so how has 'general agreement' been, er, agreed ?


 * I would also point out that all I did was re-word two sentences, add one, and remove another. Its not like I added dozens of paragraphs. And added a picture (a picture tells a thousand words). I would also have appreciated that before the yet another revert, this had been discussed first - thats general Wiki courtesy. As it is Bazonka has reverted, and who's sole entry to the discussion is 'I agree with WarofDreams'. Not exactlty enlightening. Er, why ? Care to discuss ? The Yeti (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK then, allow me to elaborate.
 * Your edit for Antarctica is acceptable but unnecessary - you haven't added any new information, and I feel that it is no clearer (though no worse either).
 * Regarding Australia, you must remember that this list is about islands. The contintental land masses are included because in effect they are just enormous islands, entirely surrounded by water. And we are only referring to the main land-mass of the continent, not any other islands that are on the same continental shelf. So the "island" of Australia should not include Tasmania or New Guinea, etc. - these are all covered elsewhere in the article.  The area of the continental land mass must remain as the smaller figure of 7,600,000.  Perhaps some clarification is needed, but not in the way you did it.  The link to Australia (continent) is not strictly correct, but there is no article for the Australian mainland only, so I guess it's the best we can do. Bazonka (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This time, it's my turn to agree with Bazonka. Warofdreams talk 18:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to understand why the mainland of Australia isn't the largest island. According to the island article it is. According to the Australia (continent) it isn't a continent. So I don't really understand why it isn't listed as the largest island.Ticklemygrits (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Portuuese islands
Something is definitely wrong. Madeira is bigger than any of the Azores islands and I think its size is wrong in the table —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.180.84 (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Luzon - Newfoundland
Newfoundland is listed as number 15 followed by Luzon at number 16 but the square kilometers and square mile figures show that Luzon is bigger. Should they be swapped? I'm not an expert and so maybe I am missing something or maybe the figures are wrong. --Bruce Hall (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain from 8th to 9th
When did GB get demoted? See the list of European Islands, which has it listed correctly.

This is a mistake. The area of GB should be 84400, someone incorrectly converted this to square kilometres.

Someone else then reconverted the incorrect km back to miles, making it smaller than it was.

Problem occurred at 00:47, 23 August 2008, this was when 209.104.163.223 downsized the KM entry.

I've correct this.
 * The currently cited source has the area of Great Britain as 209331.1 sq km. If you have a source from Statistics UK on the area of Great Britain island, then please add the citation before changing the figure. --Polaron | Talk 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a cited source for the area of GB at the moment. The cited source from the Great Britain article (http://www.intute.ac.uk/worldguide/guide_largestislands.html) uses a rounded km entry (219,000) from Chambers Book of Facts 2007.

If you take a look at the entry made 00:47, 23 August 2008 you can see someone made the mistake and lowered the KM entry without lowering the Miles entry (and without reason). Someone else later corrected the Miles entry from the incorrect KM entry. Someone else then moved GB down to 9th.

The mistake is there, please take a quick look at the revisions with side of 00:47, 23 August 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.11.61 (talk)
 * The cited source shows 209331.1 sq km. Using the currently cited source, there is no mistake. --Polaron | Talk 18:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This page also contradicts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_islands_by_area which has the correct area matching the area on this page before the mistake was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.11.61 (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just find a reputable source (e.g. Statistics UK) that has the right figure and reference it when you change the figure. --Polaron | Talk 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've checked the cited source and there are other differences (including Victoria Island). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.11.61 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Victoria Island is sourced to the Atlas of Canada. That is why it is different from the UN list, which is the default source for all entries without a more authoritative source. All you need is to add a source similar to the Atlas of Canada to any change in the Great Britain figure. --Polaron | Talk 18:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Does http://www.intute.ac.uk/worldguide/guide_largestislands.html count as a source, which itself references Chambers Book of Facts 2007? I would have thought the UN list was the overriding one for all cases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.11.61 (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Busuanga Island, Philippines
Hi everyone. Busuanga Island in the Philippines is missing from the list. It has an area of 890 square kilometers which should put it in the 500-1,000 square kilometer section. Here is a link indicating its area: http://thepinoy.com/content/philippine_guide/93_palawan/7_calamian.html If someone could please kindly add it, that would be great. Thank you.
 * Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Lists of Sovereign States and Dependent Territories
Just me or is nothing in the table under the above heading an actual sovereign state or dependent territory ????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.72.51 (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lists, in the plural. Each link is to a list article.  EdC (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
What exactly is the issue here? Let's just keep it done the same way as every other island, with the sovereign state followed by first level administrative entities if not the whole country is included. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a major issue with flags in Nortern Ireland and as a result the Northern Ireland article has no flag on it. It would be safer to remove any flags that have been added beside the Northern Ireland name on this article in order to avoid any trouble like that which has happened before on Wikipedia and even made it into the media.

See also: Talk:Northern Ireland, Proposed flags of Northern Ireland, Flags Used in Northern Ireland-- MFIreland  • Talk  16:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No flag is given here for Northern Ireland, just as no flag is given for any integral administrative division. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Union Flag is given.-- MFIreland  • Talk  17:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As the flag of the United Kingdom, not Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is nice and isolated in brackets, without a flag. The rows immediately above and below are formatted in exactly the same way. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Chipmunkdavis is quite correct. Bazonka (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sortable tables
Suggest removing the sortable feature: three of the fields are already sorted, the remaining two make little sense to sort as the tables are in smallish chunks anyway so a) would only be sorting the chunk, and b. alpha sorting isn't really needed for small tables. Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Violation of 3 Revert Rule
User:Zarrin-dokht's edit warring has caused a violation of WP:3RR. An IP editor (who I presume is the same person) also violated this rule a couple of days ago, despite my warning in the thread above. I was lenient the first time, but now, because of the warning, Zarrin-dokht should have no excuse for this behaviour and action should be taken. I would report him/her, but unfortunately I am without a proper Internet connection at present and so I'm doing my editing on a smart-phone. Simple edits (like this post) are possible, but more complex ones are not, e.g. reporting users where diffs need to be pasted. Therefore, please could someone else report Zarrin-dokht at WP:AN/EW? Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your report will not be accepted. Why? Look at the rules first:


 * Not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring:


 * Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.


 * Instead of applying impolite direct revertings (most of the people here including youself had done that). I did a lot of my edits mannually with adjustments made according to other people's constructive recommendations (get rid of overlinks, accept DLinth's recommendations etc.) and I supported my edits with meaningful edit summaries and constructive discussions. Since you have brought in that WP:3RR rule, I would like to inform some of you that it's not me, but your guys are in danger of being reported and potencially blocked by the administors. Zarrin-dokht (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A series of reverts is edit warring. The first bold edit was fine, it was reverted. The subsequent ones weren't. You're still changing the category title for some weird reason, so it's hardly manual. You may of course, report if you wish. Keep WP:BOOMERANG in mind. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't. In fact, I never did. The category title was kept as Landmass. Checking the history of this article, the category title was Continents, then for some weird reasons, you changed it to Landmasses, then an IP User changed it to Continental Landmasses, then you changed it back. This is what I wrote in my conversation with Bazonka earlier:


 * Please pardon me. I didn’t realise that there were overlinkings. I prefer to use the words continental landmass, the introduction section of the article as well as the subtitle also use the words continental landmass, but landmass is okay to me.


 * That was one of my earliest posts and I repeat again, I never change the category title, you did.


 * By category I mean Category:Lists of islands, which you remove the "| " from, but which it should have as this is a main article within that category. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon. I really don't know about that one. From the preview it doesn't seem to make a difference so I thought someone must have mistakenly typed an extra "| ", so I just deleted it.