![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I agree on this - what about deleting for example all islands below 5 km2 for a start? Antipoeten 14:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Appears twice as of elpincha 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC).
I removed the duplicate. Antipoeten 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 (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 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 some duplicates. Each duplicate points to the same main article page, but shows a different Km/Mi landmass.
Listed Twice
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)
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 "
United Kingdom (
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. {{CAN}}) are back in their old style (e.g. {{Flag|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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. JIMp talk· 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Rank | Island’s name | Area (km²) |
Area (sq mi) |
Country | Countries |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Greenland | 2,130,800 [1] | 822,706 | Greenland | |
2 | New Guinea | 785,753 | 303,381 | Indonesia | Y |
2 | New Guinea | 785,753 | 303,381 | Papua New Guinea | Y |
3 | Borneo | 748,168 | 288,869 | Brunei | Y |
3 | Borneo | 748,168 | 288,869 | Indonesia | Y |
4 | Madagascar | 587,713 | 226,917 | Madagascar | |
5 | Baffin Island | 507,451 [2] | 195,928 | Canada | |
6 | Sumatra | 443,066 | 171,069 | Indonesia |
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)
Here is an alternative suggestion, although I appreciate that it isn't particularly wonderful either:
Rank | Island’s name | Area (km²) |
Area (sq mi) |
Country | Regions/Provinces | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Greenland | 2,130,800 [1] | 822,706 | ![]() |
Autonomous province of ![]() | |
2 | New Guinea | 785,753 | 303,381 | ![]() ![]() |
Papua and
West Papua |
|
3 | Borneo | 748,168 | 288,869 | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Central,
East,
South and
West Kalimantan Sabah and Sarawak |
|
4 | Madagascar | 587,713 | 226,917 | ![]() |
||
5 | Baffin Island | 507,451 [2] | 195,928 | ![]() |
Nunavut | |
6 | Sumatra | 443,066 | 171,069 | ![]() |
Aceh, Bengkulu, Jambi, Lampung, Riau and North, South and West Sumatra |
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)
This page seriously needs some sort of protection - the amount of vandalism it gets is huge. Bazonka ( talk) 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
The Union Flag is given.-- MFIreland • Talk 17:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
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).
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I agree on this - what about deleting for example all islands below 5 km2 for a start? Antipoeten 14:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Appears twice as of elpincha 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC).
I removed the duplicate. Antipoeten 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 (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 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 some duplicates. Each duplicate points to the same main article page, but shows a different Km/Mi landmass.
Listed Twice
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)
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 "
United Kingdom (
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. {{CAN}}) are back in their old style (e.g. {{Flag|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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. JIMp talk· 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Rank | Island’s name | Area (km²) |
Area (sq mi) |
Country | Countries |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Greenland | 2,130,800 [1] | 822,706 | Greenland | |
2 | New Guinea | 785,753 | 303,381 | Indonesia | Y |
2 | New Guinea | 785,753 | 303,381 | Papua New Guinea | Y |
3 | Borneo | 748,168 | 288,869 | Brunei | Y |
3 | Borneo | 748,168 | 288,869 | Indonesia | Y |
4 | Madagascar | 587,713 | 226,917 | Madagascar | |
5 | Baffin Island | 507,451 [2] | 195,928 | Canada | |
6 | Sumatra | 443,066 | 171,069 | Indonesia |
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)
Here is an alternative suggestion, although I appreciate that it isn't particularly wonderful either:
Rank | Island’s name | Area (km²) |
Area (sq mi) |
Country | Regions/Provinces | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Greenland | 2,130,800 [1] | 822,706 | ![]() |
Autonomous province of ![]() | |
2 | New Guinea | 785,753 | 303,381 | ![]() ![]() |
Papua and
West Papua |
|
3 | Borneo | 748,168 | 288,869 | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Central,
East,
South and
West Kalimantan Sabah and Sarawak |
|
4 | Madagascar | 587,713 | 226,917 | ![]() |
||
5 | Baffin Island | 507,451 [2] | 195,928 | ![]() |
Nunavut | |
6 | Sumatra | 443,066 | 171,069 | ![]() |
Aceh, Bengkulu, Jambi, Lampung, Riau and North, South and West Sumatra |
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)
This page seriously needs some sort of protection - the amount of vandalism it gets is huge. Bazonka ( talk) 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
The Union Flag is given.-- MFIreland • Talk 17:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
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).
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)