![]() | Extreme points of Afro-Eurasia was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 February 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Afro-Eurasia. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Excludes polar regions and Oceania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.212.43 ( talk) 03:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
sem nexo eurasia norte do saara americas oceania tem mais vinculos dentre si que com o resto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.154.75.17 ( talk) 21:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Since when Asia and Europe are separated by the Suez Canal? An obvious mistake... - 68.199.159.52 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I've heard Eufrasia somewhere. Is that a real name? Jigen III 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Stating the pupulation to be exactly 5,455,012,581 is incorrect. The total population varies every second on account of births and deaths. A more correct way would be to say "The population is close to 5.5 billion." Or omit the sentence all together, just keeping "[...] containing around 85% of the World population." Dj tricky 16:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added several citation needed tags, and we haven't got sources for the following terms yet:
I'm afraid some of them were coined by Wikipedians. The following terms are known to have been used in academic books and journals:
The problem is that the current title Africa-Eurasia has no reliable source now. It must be a geological term because historians prefer Afro-Eurasia. Can anyone provide a source? If nobody can find one, the article must be renamed to Afro-Eurasia. The World Island is the oldest term but it's not appropriate since it clearly excludes surrounding islands. - TAKASUGI Shinji ( talk) 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The article should be renamed to Afro-Eurasia. As I have explained above, it's a common term among historians. We don't have a reliable source for Africa-Eurasia. - TAKASUGI Shinji ( talk) 05:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall from GCSE Geography that Spain (and, indeed, Portugal) is largely part of Africa anyway... The Gibraltar straits lie in Africa, not between Africa and Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 ( talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
you musnt remember it well then! iberia is definitely seperate from africa. in the straight of gibraltar lies the plate boundary between the eurasian plate and the african plate. the straights ARE the boundary between europe and africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.27.163 ( talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example:
I'd like to try and standardise maps across the following articles: Americas, North America, South America, Africa, Afro-Eurasia, Asia, Australasia, Eurasia, Europe and Oceania (and also, ideally, Arctic and Antarctica. My preference is for the orthographic projection currently used at Europe because:
Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop (unless, of course, anyone volunteers beforehand!) However, before doing that I do want to check that there is consensus for this at each article affected. Additionally, I'm posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to increase the exposure - I'd rather find out if this is a stupid idea before I start requesting new images ;-)
Personally I think it would be good if the Arctic and Antarctic maps were consistent with the continent maps. I realise that the poles may have different requirements, however.
This proposal is quite a radical proposal, affecting many articles, and deals with areas I don't normally edit in. I'm therefore prepared to be slapped down if I'm stepping on toes!
Cheers, This flag once was red propaganda deeds 10:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The map includes Madagascar; that shouldn't be colored in. -- Golbez July 9, 2005 08:34 (UTC)
The Islands shouldn't be colour green if this article is specific to the single land mass. - Ajuk 21:59, 05 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to include Iceland, since it is closer the the North American island of Greenland. - Flybyright ( talk) 01:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It's nice that there is such a clear example to point to when we need to discuss how WP:NOTDEMOCRACY & WP:VOTE work. The WP:SCOPE of this article is the combination of the conventional continents of Africa, Europe, and Asia, which in common English and in most WP:RS is going to include—at minimum—the islands lying on their continental shelves. Excluding Britain and Japan from this article makes no more sense than excluding Scandinavia (enisled by the White Sea–Baltic Canal), Africa (enisled by the Suez Canal), and continental Europe (enisled by the Volga–Baltic Waterway). What's left over is called " Asia" and even that is cut up into pieces by waterways in Iraq, India, Malaysia, China...
For that matter, if we're being that silly, we'd need to include separate high-tide and low-tide figures for the land area.
Instead, we stick to the common use of the name, discuss the continents in their normal sense, and map them in their normal sense. We can include separate treatment and separate maps of "control-Eastern-Europe-control-the-Heartland-control-the-world" Mackinder's peculiar and invented idea of the World-Island (his spelling) which does pointedly exclude those outlying islands but even he knew that Britain was part of Europe and Japan part of Asia. He excluded them for political reasons, in order to make a point about Britain and America's position within the emerging world order as railroads began to allow Russia to mobilize its resources. Of course, he was a nut and we shouldn't spend too much time on the idea except at a devoted article (which would be devoted to his ideas, not a geographical entity with no offshore islands.) — LlywelynII 01:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't Afro-Euroasia be a super-contenint because it's connected to asia which is connected to Europe which makes Afro-Euroasia. Hpsuperfan ( talk) 03:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like some one to add an Infobox to this page please 109.151.165.41 ( talk) 18:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Shinji cleaned up some of the WP:OR people were foisting on this article and that's great but we still have an unhelpful mess of alternative names that we're probably giving WP:UNDUE weight to. Just because one scholar coins or employs a term doesn't make it WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH that belongs in the WP:LEAD section.
Ngram suggests that "Old World" absolutely crushes any alternative names for this landmass and is the COMMON ENGLISH name for this topic; that Shinji didn't do his homework and Africa-Eurasia is more common than the current article name; and that essentially no one writes Afroeurasia as a single word (yet). Scholar gives 800k for "Old World" (including many, many present-day uses), 10k for ["ecumene" &c. (although most are unrelated modern uses, discussing a world culture), 4.5k for "Africa-Eurasia" (showing Ngram was misleading and Shinji did ok: they're almost all treating Africa and Eurasia separately, particularly discussing the collision of their respective tectonic plates), "World Island" has 3k (but mostly off-topic hits for things like "...world. Island..."), 740 for "Afro-Eurasia", 250 for Eufrasia (almost entirely in reference to Hispanic women named for St Euphrosyne: only 1 (!) hit for "Eufrasia"+"Africa"+"Eurasia"), 150 for "Afroeurasia", 13 (!) for "Eurafrasia".
The upshot:
840,000 v 740: This needs merging. — LlywelynII 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit: In a related note, those demonyms aren't actually a thing. 2 of the 4 Google Books hits for "I (a)m an old worlder" are Illuminati Formula For Total Mind Control and Alien Incursions. No one has used "Afro-Eurasian" as a demonym except for Reddit user "clopgod". We should not actually be coining these here, regardless of the sound etymology. — LlywelynII 16:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The history section seems largely unnecessary to me. Essentially it's a condensed version of the history of the world, with Oceania and the Americas excised. Because Afro-Eurasia has always contained the significant majority of the world population, the significant majority of world history happened on the landmass.
The pre-historic separation of the human population between the landmasses of Afro-Eurasia, Oceania and the Americas is interesting from an anthropological standpoint. However apart from this, Afro-Eurasia has never been a meaningful subdivision in terms of human history, and the selection of human history that currently forms this section is contrived.
I propose this section be removed entirely. This article is about an entity that is significant in terms of geology, but not modern history. It could potentially be replaced with a short "Anthropology" section. -- LukeSurl t c 18:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I asked this question elsewhere and got no answer.
Has anyone ever circumnavigated the World Island? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
nobody in the historic written record has ever been reputed to have done anything like that Paulalexdij ( talk) 23:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Afro-Eurasia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The Caspian Sea and most of the African Great Lakes are not visible on the infobox map without border-lines 86.6.152.180 ( talk) 20:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
From the section on Afro-Eurasia's geological history: "...the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez Rifts further divided Africa from the Arabian Plate. Today, Africa is joined to Asia only by a relatively narrow land bridge (which has been split by the Suez Canal at the Isthmus of Suez)..." This is obviously about the link between mainland Africa and the landmass on the Arabian plate. Here, that piece of land is simply called a part of "Asia", which it isn't anywhere else in the article. I've tried naming it there, but "the Arabian Peninsula" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing. Is there a name for that specific landmass that can be used instead? TavianCLirette ( talk) 06:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC) TavianCLirette
Both words are widely used on the Internet, but which one should we use as the title? My personal preference is Africa-Eurasia. The word Afro mainly refers to a hairstyle typically associated with Africans. It doesn't mean Africa. I have spoken with a few African friends, they actually think Afro-Eurasia to be racist and they don't like this word.
My suggestion is that we change the title to Africa-Eurasia instead. 2001:8003:9008:1301:1086:31F:A6C:F8E2 ( talk) 16:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Afro-
COMBINING FORM Afro- is used to form adjectives and nouns that describe something that is connected with Africa. ...very well known Afro-American family.
...an Afro-centric fashion show.
On the “globe without borders” option the caspian sea is filled in as green, despite the aral sea right next to it, visible. Cleverjoseph ( talk) 11:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
could\should the article not include at least one reference to the numeric figure given as being the area of this super-landmass with and\or without surrounding islands and with or without internal bodies of water ... Paulalexdij ( talk) 23:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
"Although Afro-Eurasia is typically considered to comprise two or three separate continents, it is not a proper supercontinent."
Should this line from the intro to the geology section not just say '...comprise three separate continents...'? In what way does it only combine two continents? It literally has three continents in its name.
WikidKev (
talk) 07:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Why is Afro Eurasia considered a landmass, when this article strangely includes islands: Java, Honshu, Britain, etc., as part of it? Because they're certainly not part of this landmass... Zilch-nada ( talk) 12:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Extreme points of Afro-Eurasia was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 February 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Afro-Eurasia. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Excludes polar regions and Oceania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.212.43 ( talk) 03:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
sem nexo eurasia norte do saara americas oceania tem mais vinculos dentre si que com o resto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.154.75.17 ( talk) 21:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Since when Asia and Europe are separated by the Suez Canal? An obvious mistake... - 68.199.159.52 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I've heard Eufrasia somewhere. Is that a real name? Jigen III 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Stating the pupulation to be exactly 5,455,012,581 is incorrect. The total population varies every second on account of births and deaths. A more correct way would be to say "The population is close to 5.5 billion." Or omit the sentence all together, just keeping "[...] containing around 85% of the World population." Dj tricky 16:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added several citation needed tags, and we haven't got sources for the following terms yet:
I'm afraid some of them were coined by Wikipedians. The following terms are known to have been used in academic books and journals:
The problem is that the current title Africa-Eurasia has no reliable source now. It must be a geological term because historians prefer Afro-Eurasia. Can anyone provide a source? If nobody can find one, the article must be renamed to Afro-Eurasia. The World Island is the oldest term but it's not appropriate since it clearly excludes surrounding islands. - TAKASUGI Shinji ( talk) 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The article should be renamed to Afro-Eurasia. As I have explained above, it's a common term among historians. We don't have a reliable source for Africa-Eurasia. - TAKASUGI Shinji ( talk) 05:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall from GCSE Geography that Spain (and, indeed, Portugal) is largely part of Africa anyway... The Gibraltar straits lie in Africa, not between Africa and Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 ( talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
you musnt remember it well then! iberia is definitely seperate from africa. in the straight of gibraltar lies the plate boundary between the eurasian plate and the african plate. the straights ARE the boundary between europe and africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.27.163 ( talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example:
I'd like to try and standardise maps across the following articles: Americas, North America, South America, Africa, Afro-Eurasia, Asia, Australasia, Eurasia, Europe and Oceania (and also, ideally, Arctic and Antarctica. My preference is for the orthographic projection currently used at Europe because:
Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop (unless, of course, anyone volunteers beforehand!) However, before doing that I do want to check that there is consensus for this at each article affected. Additionally, I'm posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to increase the exposure - I'd rather find out if this is a stupid idea before I start requesting new images ;-)
Personally I think it would be good if the Arctic and Antarctic maps were consistent with the continent maps. I realise that the poles may have different requirements, however.
This proposal is quite a radical proposal, affecting many articles, and deals with areas I don't normally edit in. I'm therefore prepared to be slapped down if I'm stepping on toes!
Cheers, This flag once was red propaganda deeds 10:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The map includes Madagascar; that shouldn't be colored in. -- Golbez July 9, 2005 08:34 (UTC)
The Islands shouldn't be colour green if this article is specific to the single land mass. - Ajuk 21:59, 05 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to include Iceland, since it is closer the the North American island of Greenland. - Flybyright ( talk) 01:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It's nice that there is such a clear example to point to when we need to discuss how WP:NOTDEMOCRACY & WP:VOTE work. The WP:SCOPE of this article is the combination of the conventional continents of Africa, Europe, and Asia, which in common English and in most WP:RS is going to include—at minimum—the islands lying on their continental shelves. Excluding Britain and Japan from this article makes no more sense than excluding Scandinavia (enisled by the White Sea–Baltic Canal), Africa (enisled by the Suez Canal), and continental Europe (enisled by the Volga–Baltic Waterway). What's left over is called " Asia" and even that is cut up into pieces by waterways in Iraq, India, Malaysia, China...
For that matter, if we're being that silly, we'd need to include separate high-tide and low-tide figures for the land area.
Instead, we stick to the common use of the name, discuss the continents in their normal sense, and map them in their normal sense. We can include separate treatment and separate maps of "control-Eastern-Europe-control-the-Heartland-control-the-world" Mackinder's peculiar and invented idea of the World-Island (his spelling) which does pointedly exclude those outlying islands but even he knew that Britain was part of Europe and Japan part of Asia. He excluded them for political reasons, in order to make a point about Britain and America's position within the emerging world order as railroads began to allow Russia to mobilize its resources. Of course, he was a nut and we shouldn't spend too much time on the idea except at a devoted article (which would be devoted to his ideas, not a geographical entity with no offshore islands.) — LlywelynII 01:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't Afro-Euroasia be a super-contenint because it's connected to asia which is connected to Europe which makes Afro-Euroasia. Hpsuperfan ( talk) 03:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like some one to add an Infobox to this page please 109.151.165.41 ( talk) 18:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Shinji cleaned up some of the WP:OR people were foisting on this article and that's great but we still have an unhelpful mess of alternative names that we're probably giving WP:UNDUE weight to. Just because one scholar coins or employs a term doesn't make it WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH that belongs in the WP:LEAD section.
Ngram suggests that "Old World" absolutely crushes any alternative names for this landmass and is the COMMON ENGLISH name for this topic; that Shinji didn't do his homework and Africa-Eurasia is more common than the current article name; and that essentially no one writes Afroeurasia as a single word (yet). Scholar gives 800k for "Old World" (including many, many present-day uses), 10k for ["ecumene" &c. (although most are unrelated modern uses, discussing a world culture), 4.5k for "Africa-Eurasia" (showing Ngram was misleading and Shinji did ok: they're almost all treating Africa and Eurasia separately, particularly discussing the collision of their respective tectonic plates), "World Island" has 3k (but mostly off-topic hits for things like "...world. Island..."), 740 for "Afro-Eurasia", 250 for Eufrasia (almost entirely in reference to Hispanic women named for St Euphrosyne: only 1 (!) hit for "Eufrasia"+"Africa"+"Eurasia"), 150 for "Afroeurasia", 13 (!) for "Eurafrasia".
The upshot:
840,000 v 740: This needs merging. — LlywelynII 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit: In a related note, those demonyms aren't actually a thing. 2 of the 4 Google Books hits for "I (a)m an old worlder" are Illuminati Formula For Total Mind Control and Alien Incursions. No one has used "Afro-Eurasian" as a demonym except for Reddit user "clopgod". We should not actually be coining these here, regardless of the sound etymology. — LlywelynII 16:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The history section seems largely unnecessary to me. Essentially it's a condensed version of the history of the world, with Oceania and the Americas excised. Because Afro-Eurasia has always contained the significant majority of the world population, the significant majority of world history happened on the landmass.
The pre-historic separation of the human population between the landmasses of Afro-Eurasia, Oceania and the Americas is interesting from an anthropological standpoint. However apart from this, Afro-Eurasia has never been a meaningful subdivision in terms of human history, and the selection of human history that currently forms this section is contrived.
I propose this section be removed entirely. This article is about an entity that is significant in terms of geology, but not modern history. It could potentially be replaced with a short "Anthropology" section. -- LukeSurl t c 18:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I asked this question elsewhere and got no answer.
Has anyone ever circumnavigated the World Island? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
nobody in the historic written record has ever been reputed to have done anything like that Paulalexdij ( talk) 23:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Afro-Eurasia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The Caspian Sea and most of the African Great Lakes are not visible on the infobox map without border-lines 86.6.152.180 ( talk) 20:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
From the section on Afro-Eurasia's geological history: "...the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez Rifts further divided Africa from the Arabian Plate. Today, Africa is joined to Asia only by a relatively narrow land bridge (which has been split by the Suez Canal at the Isthmus of Suez)..." This is obviously about the link between mainland Africa and the landmass on the Arabian plate. Here, that piece of land is simply called a part of "Asia", which it isn't anywhere else in the article. I've tried naming it there, but "the Arabian Peninsula" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing. Is there a name for that specific landmass that can be used instead? TavianCLirette ( talk) 06:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC) TavianCLirette
Both words are widely used on the Internet, but which one should we use as the title? My personal preference is Africa-Eurasia. The word Afro mainly refers to a hairstyle typically associated with Africans. It doesn't mean Africa. I have spoken with a few African friends, they actually think Afro-Eurasia to be racist and they don't like this word.
My suggestion is that we change the title to Africa-Eurasia instead. 2001:8003:9008:1301:1086:31F:A6C:F8E2 ( talk) 16:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Afro-
COMBINING FORM Afro- is used to form adjectives and nouns that describe something that is connected with Africa. ...very well known Afro-American family.
...an Afro-centric fashion show.
On the “globe without borders” option the caspian sea is filled in as green, despite the aral sea right next to it, visible. Cleverjoseph ( talk) 11:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
could\should the article not include at least one reference to the numeric figure given as being the area of this super-landmass with and\or without surrounding islands and with or without internal bodies of water ... Paulalexdij ( talk) 23:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
"Although Afro-Eurasia is typically considered to comprise two or three separate continents, it is not a proper supercontinent."
Should this line from the intro to the geology section not just say '...comprise three separate continents...'? In what way does it only combine two continents? It literally has three continents in its name.
WikidKev (
talk) 07:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Why is Afro Eurasia considered a landmass, when this article strangely includes islands: Java, Honshu, Britain, etc., as part of it? Because they're certainly not part of this landmass... Zilch-nada ( talk) 12:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)