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.
Talk:Afro-Eurasia is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
It is typically subdivided into the continentsofAfrica and Eurasia – which is culturally, but not geographically, subdivided into Europe and Asia – separated by the Suez Canal.
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 tricky16:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several citation needed tags, and we haven't got sources for the following terms yet:
Africa-Eurasia
Asiafrica
Eufrasia
Eurasiafrica
Eurasica
I'm afraid some of them were coined by Wikipedians. The following terms are known to have been used in academic books and journals:
Afrasia
Afro-Eurasia
Eurafrasia
World Island
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)[reply]
Don't wait for an Africa-Eurasia source. Even if there is one, according to what you've just said, Afro-Eurasia is the more common term and should be the article title. I also am behind removing any term you believe is original research. If users would like to re-add previously unverified terms, they can add them simultaneously with sourcing. Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]04:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's an SVG instead of a PNG, so can be scaled easily.
New maps can be relatively created from existing SVGs (i.e. Europe's map - or the other SVG maps visible at File:Europe (orthographic projection).svg - can be recycled).
As an orthographic projection it allows the maps to be centred on the relevant continent or territory.
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!
For some maps, this won't work. With Afro-Eurasia (and most likely with Asia itself) there is so much area spread out that the orthographic projection would not show everything and would show quite a bit of distortion. — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about distortion, however Asia, Eurasia and - I think - Afro-Eurasia should fit on one map. File:Orthographic Projection of Asia.png shows all of Asia and Europe, with some room left to rotate to include all of Africa.
I am beginning to question the wisdom of this approach, though - it makes sense when it's showing the location of an area relative to other areas, but when the visible hemisphere is covered with the area in question its less useful - effectively only the Arabian peninsula and India are clearly identifiable. It might be best to treat Afro-Eurasia, Americas and Eurasia separately, i.e. retain the current maps (or, better yet, convert the current maps to SVGs...!)
only anciet north africa is related with part of eurasian/laurasic world in the africa (center-southeast africa is a sub-eurasic world; madagascar was part of southeast asia in the etnic-dna, because paris destroyed the malgaxian people original anciet southern mongoloids via/with slaves of eastern coast of africa..)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.193.206 (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Japan shouldn't be colored in either, or Britain. Note that Sumatra and Borneo aren't colored in. Yes, they are part of their continents, but they are not part of the Africa-Eurasia landmass. If you're going to call this the "world island" then it should be only one island. --Golbez 00:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Great Britain actually has to be colored in, since Gibraltar is part of the coast --anonymous 16:27, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
Right on. If the map is to stay put, then the adjoining text needs to be much clearer about the nearby islands being associated with but (quite obviously) not physically part of this supercontinent. //Big Adamsky02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The maps are fine. The text needs to clearly distinguish between a continental mainland and associated lands: pro forma, a continent is a large continuous landmass, but conventional notions regarding continents (e.g., politically) typically embrace the mainland and adjacent islands and territories. And don't let water fool you: remember that many of these lands are associated geophysically through tectonic plates. Similarly, consult any dictionary (e.g., Oxford) for, say, Japan and you'll get something like this (emphasis added):
a country in eastern Asia, occupying a festoon of islands in the Pacific roughly parallel with the east coast of the Asiatic mainland ...
I was going to start a new section, but saw this topic already raised a long time ago. This acticle is talking about the landmass Afro-Eurasia which, as I understand it, doesn't include islands. Whereas "continent" may or may not include islands. From the article: "The term (Afro-Eurasia) excludes non-mainland islands and archipelagos". Yet immediately to the right there is a map showing Afro-Eurasia with the nearby islands colored green as if to include them. Again, it is my understanding that Afro-Eurasia is the name of a landmass composed of the mainland portions of the continents Africa and Eurasia(Europe and Asia) and the term "landmass" in general includes only the mainland, no associated islands. It is when speaking of continent where, depending on definition, we may or may not include surrounding islands. See List of islands by area. This list tends to support my interpretation of "landmass" as does the article for landmass and its definition, "A landmass is a large continuous area of land."
Geographically it is partially on the European plate, which makes it claim to being European justified. Also, historically, culturally, and ethnically Iceland is European. You can insist it is not but that doesn't make it so. Arnoutf (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the claim is completely true, it is closer to Greenland then anywhere else in Europe. However, it's not considered part of North America, and I've never seen it as such. Its people came from Europe, and continue to claim to be European. It has even applied to the EU. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this clears it up.Iceland lies on the fault line so it's technicnaly half on each (North America and Europe) but it's politacly in Europe. Hpsuperfan (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.) — LlywelynII01:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under Geology it says Afro-Eurasia will become a super-contenint when it collides with Europe.It's already a super-conternint because it connected to Asia.That's what I ment.Sorry if it was hard to understand. Hpsuperfan (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:COMMONWP:ENGLISH that belongs in the WP:LEAD section.
Ngram suggests that "Old World" absolutely crushes any alternative names for this landmass and is the COMMONENGLISH 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:
We keep redirects from Eurafrasia and Eufrasia but they don't go in the article at all: they are highly obscureWP:NEOLOGISMsdistracting from what this supercontinent is actually called.
Afroeurasia is a borderline case—¹/₇ of the title's hits isn't nothing—but it's just a variant spelling and isn't such a common variant that it needs equal billing or placement anywhere higher than a footnote; a redirect is probably just fine.
The common name for this topic is Old World. We're creating a WP:POVFORK trying to shunt the geographical discussion here and the historical context to Old World but that's simply not how the terms are used. "Old World" absolutely crushes any alternative names for this supercontinent and is used broadly in modern fields to describe it. Of the first 40 results, only one follows Wikipedia's POVFORK in using it to narrowly describe this landmass distinguished from the New World in the context of the Age of Discovery. The other 39 primary hits use it for completely unrelated discussions of epidemiology, botany, biology, zoology, "biogeography", sociology, and history, none of which are off topic.
I have re-added the 'Eurafrasia' variant upfront, since this was noted in one of the referenced links. I would also think this article (more geophysical) is a separate concept from the 'Old World' (more socio-ethnohistorical) and should be kept separate from it. Arguably, Eurafrasia has more to do with Pangaea than anything else. ;) 174.89.38.120 (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. --LukeSurltc18:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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[reply]
In this context, "Asia" is the correct word. Although we could specify the part of the Asian continent that Africa is joined to and be technically correct, this part of the article is for discussing how the constituent continents, Africa, Asia, and Europe fit together to make Afro-Eurasia, and specifying "lower-level" parts in this sentence is confusing and unnecessary for the reader. --LukeSurltc14:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the sentence on its own, it does make sense for it to talk about the main pieces that make the whole Afro-Eurasia. But this isn't about replacing a general name with a specific part for detail, so much as it is about the assertion that the landmass in question is part of one of these continents, especially under the section where it hasn't been referred to that way before. TavianCLirette
A bit late to the game here, but I think I see where the confusion in the text lies. The Sinai Peninsula, which is widely considered to be part of "Asia", is definitively a part of the African plate. The African plate extends up that Asian portion of the Eastern Mediterranean coast until Turkey. The plate also incorporates Malta and Sicily, but funnily enough not all of continental Morocco, which belongs to the Eurasian plate, while the rest of the continent is shared with other plates. So of the two sentences you've highlighted, it would seem the first one is the incorrect one, if we're talking about plates- "the Gulf of Aqaba and the coastal Levant constitute the boundaries between the African plate and the Arabian and Anatolian plates." Perhaps a quick addendum on the definition of Africa is in order, however it could be confusing to the reader. Perhaps none of these "boundaries" are super relevant in discussing what is a shared landmass. An exploratory edit is probably in order to sense what should fit in the article. SuperTah (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Dictionaries confirm that 'afro-' as a combining form is perfectly acceptable in English. This is the entry from the Collins online dictionary.
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.
Not to the ears of my African friends though. They said it sounds racist. Furthermore, the main Wikipedia article for Americans with African descent is African Americans, not Afro-Americans.
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)[reply]
"... comprise two or three separate continents..."[edit]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]