Talk:List of transcontinental countries/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Iran

Iran cannot possibly be considered to be in Europe, it's not even bordering Europe. There are not creible sources for this, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.228.206 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

indeed. I really don't understand why people are allowed to introduce all sorts of obscure nonsense without citing any sources. WP:RS applies. If you have a good source making some obscure claim, by all means include it, Wikipedia is a good place for obscure information (but respect WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims need especially solid references). If you have no source, don't bother even clicking the edit button, you aren't helping, you are actually damaging the project.

If you have a dodgy source, at least include it and let others decide whether it qualifies for inclusion. But no source at all isn't even a "contribution", it's just noise deteriorating article quality, putting a burden on editors to remove it on sight. --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Spain

Ceuta and Melilla are not part of the 17 Autonomous Communities of Spain, they are 2 Autonomous cities (Spain has 17 Autonomous Communities plus 2 Autonomous Cities). Could some correct this? Maybe someone could mention, Spain is the only country that holds territories on mainland Africa (North Africa). Also France is the only country that holds a territory on mainland South America (French Guiana). 178.103.32.138 (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing: Indonesia, Cyprus, Greece, etc.

Indonesia - asia/oceania [1] - is missing. Armenia's european relation is mentioned, but Cyprus' isn't. North american islands of South american countries (and vice versa) are mentioned, but Asian islands of European countries are not (Greece). Maybe there are other missing, but this should be corrected. Alinor (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It was. Regards. Gvogas (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The source you provided copy-n-pasted from the wikipedia article on Indonesia. I know because they are largely my own words. --Merbabu (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

First, there are a lot of mistakes in this Wiki entry. For example, Oceania is not a continent, but a region, mostly in Asia, some in Australia (the continent, not the country). Second, Indonesia actually fits the "contiguous transcontinental" category category of this entry because some of it's islands are actually part of the Australian continent. For example, the island of New Guinea (of which approximately the eastern half -- Papua -- is part of Indonesia) is considered part of the Australian continent. Some other, smaller islands are also geologically considered part of the Australian continent (e.g., the Aru Islands in the Malukus). greggiebaba Source: Any damn atlas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggiebaba (talk • contribs) 22:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Since this page seems un-editable, can someone please make a change to the "Other Examples" section. The original line is: "The Netherlands has the Caribbean island possessions of Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Aruba."

It should be changed to "Constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands include the Caribbean island possessions of Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Aruba." They aren't considered "possessions".

Thanks

HurricaneJoAnne (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, although worded slightly differently. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2012

North and South America

• Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao and Trinidad and Tobago: The sea islands division of South America and North America is complicated. All Caribbean islands are often labeled as North American, but the Dutch dependencies of Aruba and Curaçao, the Dutch special municipality of Bonaire lie on the continental shelf of South America, and can be considered South American as well. What complicats it even further is that The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago lie on two Continental shelves. The south half of Trinidad lies in South America and the north half of Trindad, and Tobago, lie on the Caribbean plate. Note that all these islands have closer cultural ties with North America.
• Colombia: Mainland Colombia is in northwestern South America and Malpelo Island in the Pacific Ocean is also associated with South America, but the nation also controls the San Andrés and Providencia archipelago, 640 kilometres (400 mi) WNW of Colombia's Caribbean coast, near the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua. This archipelago is coterminous with the department of the same name.
• Venezuela: Mainland Venezuela is on South America, but Isla Aves are geographically North American. Isla Aves is one of the Federal dependencies of Venezuela under the administration of the transcontinental city of Caracas.

98.247.111.97 (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Aweiredguy (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Greece

Are the Greek Islands in the Aegean just off the coast of turkey considered Europe or Asia because if they're considered Asia then Greece is partly in Asia--J intela (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

In the "Non-contiguous" section ("Europe, North America, South America & Africa"):

Following Mayotte becoming a departement of France, please change :

France: Metropolitan France is in Europe, while the four Overseas Departments are in other continents. Guadeloupe & Martinique are in North America, French Guiana is in South America, and Réunion is in Africa. These four French Overseas Departments are legally and administratively an integral part of France. France will gain a second African region when Mayotte becomes an overseas department in 2011. There are other island possessions associated with North America, Africa, Oceania, and Antarctica that are French overseas collectives or part of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands, but these are not integral parts of France.

by:

France: Metropolitan France is in Europe, while the five Overseas Departments are in other continents. Guadeloupe & Martinique are in North America, French Guiana is in South America, while Mayotte and Réunion are in Africa. These five French Overseas Departments are legally and administratively an integral part of France. There are other island possessions associated with North America, Africa, Oceania, and Antarctica that are French overseas collectives or part of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands, but these are not integral parts of France.

 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Collectives are integral parts of France - most are administered by the French Governments, and even when they have their autonomy, they are still French, with inhabitants being French citizens when born on the territory. French Antarctica islands are completely French and administered from La Reunion by the prefet Pascal Boulot, nominated by the French president (see http://www.taaf.fr/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrien16 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2013

A Continent is more than nothing a geological concept, other considerations like political or cultural are certainly relevant, but not determinant to classify a mass of land as a continent. From the point of view of Geology, strictly talking, a Continent is a mass of land that belongs to at least one independent tectonic plate.

• Mexico, is a country mainly located in the extreme southwest part of the North America continent, however, about 13% of its territory is located to the east of the Tehuantepec isthmus, region that is shared by Oaxaca and Veracruz States. This isthmus is the actual geologic limit in between North America plate and the Central America and Caribbean ones. The geological evolution of Central America clearly shows that Yucatan peninsula with Chiapas, tabasco, Guatemala and Belize belong to a separate plate than the rest of Mexico, and a different one corresponds to all the rest of Central America. So Mexico has 5 entire of its states ( Tabasco, Chiapas, Yucatan, Quintana Roo and Campeche)in the Central America region, that geologically with the Caribbean basin might be a continent by itself, since it would include three tectonic plates completely independent of the North or South American ones. These southeastern Mexican states are the so called Maya region, that is clearly not only geographically but even culturally very distinct of the rest of the country. Besides that, Mexico has also sovereignty to islands or cays in the Caribbean that belong to the North part of the Maya reef barrier that extends in front of Central America coast ( Lobos, blackford, Centro, cabeza de coral, holbox, contoy, Cozumel, Isla mujeres)

• Colombia: this country, named after Christopher Columbus, has its mainland in northwestern South America. The oceanic islands of Malpelo Archipelago, as well as Gorgona in the Pacific, are also associated with South America. However, to the north west of the Corrientes cape in the Pacific ocean and to the south west of the Uraba Gulf, in the Caribbean, there is the Choco-Darien isthmic region (4% of Colombia territory) that geologically belongs to the Central America tectonic plate, as continuation of the Panama isthmus. Also the nation controls the San Andrés and Providencia, Serrana, Serranilla, Quitasueno, Alice, Albuquerque, East south west keys, Roncador and Bajo Nuevo archipelagos. These islands and cays are spread along 45000 square kilometers of the central American oceanic platform. This is, also, the only part of Colombia that was actually visited by Christopher Columbus in his fourth trip. These islands 640 kilometres (400 mi) WNW of Colombia's Caribbean coast, near the Atlantic coasts of Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The archipelagos are coterminous with the department of San Andres and Providence, and conform part of the geographic region of Moskitia, shared with the three Central American neighbor countries, and are the remains of the Colombian sovereignty over the Isthmus of Panama, that in the continent ceased in 1903.

Etrofimoff (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) references: http://geology.fullerton.edu/whenderson/F2007201/tectoniccocos/index.htm http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/CostaRica2008/CR-PT.HTM http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2004intl_cancun/extended/A89404.pdf http://www.tectonicanalysis.com/site/downloads/Pindell_Kennan_2009_Caribbean_GoM_update_PREPRINT.pdf http://www.ask.com/question/what-continent-is-central-america-on http://victoriastaffordapsychicinvestigation.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tectonic-plates-cocos-south-american-caribbean-oceanic-plateau-north-american-plate-great-arc-of-the-caribbean-cyman-trough-gulf-of-mexico-atlantic-pacific-oceans.jpg http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/585650/Isthmus-of-Tehuantepec http://hbhcr.com/blog/?p=2117 http://www.beachcomberpete.com/central_america/ Etrofimoff (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This article uses the Continental_boundary definition for its list, not the geological definition. RudolfRed (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Russia is Non-contiguous

In the image, Russia is listed as contiguous, but it's not. I think the image should either be changed or there should be a clarification to the description to make it clear that it's only talking about whether or not the borders of the country itself crosses continental boundaries. Morganfshirley (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. CMD (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

The prefix "trans-" means "spanning" or "crossing". Wiktionary defines "transcontinental" as "Crossing, spanning a continent". But this article (and also the first sentence of List of cities spanning more than one continent) uses the term to mean "intercontinental". The latter would be more appropriate. Duoduoduo (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. It's also more than a WP:LIST, so should probably be re-titled. And it seems to be almost all original research. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Whilst "transcontinental" might mean "across a whole continent", I can also see its use in the sense of "spanning but not necessarily from one edge to another". "Intercontinental", however, surely means "between continents" rather than "spanning" (or "across") continents...? Maybe something using a word/concept such as "straddle" instead? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Armenia

And why is Armenia, not included in this list? Is this propaganda from EuroNews or something like this? Because edits from 2008 contain "Armenia" and maps that define the region as such. Look at the history and the article's long history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_Asia_transcontinental.png

Regards, --Vitilsky (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As the very map you link to shows, the modern border between Europe and Asia is drawn roughly, but not exactly, along the borders of Georgia and Azerbaijan with Russia. This puts some tiny parts of Azerbaijan and Georgia in Europe, while Armenia is completely in Asia by that definition. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I will note, the Armenian government appears to consider itself transcontinental; here is a page from their travel bureau; 1 JTdale ^Talk 13:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Define your terms!

People can't pick up definitions by telepathy. It must be acknowledged that the term 'continent' is not clearly defined in practice. If this is an article that defines a continent by political convention and not geologically then this needs to be clearly stated in the opening paragraph. Mdw0 (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved to category

I've moved Category:List of transcontinental countries back to List of transcontinental countries since I don't see why the article was moved to the category namespace in the first place. Dexterous B, did you mean to create a new category for transcontinental countries or is there a reason for the entire article to be changed to a category? SiBr₄ (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello SiBr₄, i meant to create a category for those Transcontinental Countries, but after your note i put a redirect link in the Category:List of transcontinental countries. Dexterous B (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Eurasia

As is often the case, some interpret "neutrality" to mean "what I think is correct". It is self-evidently true that SOME people, it doesn't matter how many or who, believe that Europe and Asia are one continent and that it is merely a culture/race/etc construct rather than a geophysical one, that dictates we label them as two. All the sentence did was point out that this article would treat Europe and Asia as two. Simple. In NO WAY does that mention (which was not even mine, but another user's fight I came across with an irrational editor) give ANY HINT that Europe is not a continent or weigh in on that debate at all. It's merely saying for the purpose of this article they are treated as two. How someone who believes they are two could take umbrage to this is beyond me. This is what NPOV means, it means writing in a way inclusive of all commonly held viewpoints. JesseRafe (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

USA/Hawaiian Islands

I'm no expert on the United States or what constitutes a 'territory', so can someone clarify if the Hawaiian Islands are 'enough' a part of the United States? If that's the case, then isn't(aren't?) the U.S.A. transcontinental? Seeing how (at least) the Hawaiian Islands are in Oceania. The wikipage for Oceania lists Honolulu as one of its principal cities. OmikronWeapon (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Portugal

If Portugal is listed as a transcontinental state, why it is not colored in blue in this map: File:Map of Transcontiental nations.png? Dantadd (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC) (@Scoelho86:)

 Done, The map was indeed terribly outdated and has since been replaced. Jurryaany (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Italy

Lampedusa is an italian territory and is part of Africa, as the article says, but the map don't take into account this. Trianam (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done, The map was indeed terribly outdated and has since been replaced. Jurryaany (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

POV

Many of the examples are POV beyond belief. The political possession of islands in another territory does not make a country intercontinental, else the whole concept becomes jejune. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hence they are placed under a seperate section discussing non-contiguous transcontinental countries. Jurryaany (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Panama

I have removed Panama from this page. While multiple references were listed supporting the belief of "most geographers" that Panama is a one-continent country, none were given supporting the "alternate theory" that it is transcontinental. This appears to be original research, based on one editor's personal speculation. Please forgive me if I'm missing something. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I figured Panama was likely incorrectly highlighted on the map and was not surprised to see that the article made no mention of it -- however, it remains highlighted on the map. If anyone can create a new map on which Panama is not highlighted (or explain to me how to do so) it would reduce confusion as to why Panama is highlighted on the map yet never mentioned on the page. I am the radiohead (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I support the editors speculation that Panama is transcontinental. 82.170.113.216 (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2015

In the Contiguous North-South America section, please change the link to the section Borders of the continents to the correct link to the section: Borders of the continents Daltonantony (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of transcontinental countries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050204181041/http://www.brif.kz:80/eng/maps/atyrau_region.php to http://www.brif.kz/eng/maps/atyrau_region.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050204235012/http://www.brif.kz:80/eng/maps/west_kaz_region.php to http://www.brif.kz/eng/maps/west_kaz_region.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

transcontinental country

this person spell transcontinental wrong Ejohn319 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2016

There is a typo in a reference to Colombia. It says Colomba (which hyperlinks to a municipality in Guatemala), but should be changed to read Colombia (the country).

Opus Two (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The map at the top of the article suggests that the UK has non-contigious territory on other continents; this is not the case. The UK lies entirely within Europe. While the 14 British Overseas Territories are under British jurisdiction and sovereignty, they are constitutionally separate, with their own systems of government and legal systems. They do not form part of the United Kingdom – they return no members to the UK parliament, for example, nor are they generally subject to British legisilation. P M C 08:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You say'the article suggests that the UK has non-contigious territory on other continents' then go on to say we have '14 british overseas territories'. So we do have territories in other continents. You are right that they have some autonomy but the inhabitants are British citizens with British passports and the UK control their foreign affairs. They dont have 'their own systems of government' they are based on the uk parliamentary system and the UK has overall responsibility for good governance we have occasionally imposed direct rule when this hasn't happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2017‎

BOTs are not constitutionally part of the UK, unlike overseas areas of other countries, such as France. Being entitled to a UK passport does not change that.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of transcontinental countries. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016212930/http://www.i-u.ru/biblio/archive/orlenok_fisicheskaja/06.aspx to http://www.i-u.ru/biblio/archive/orlenok_fisicheskaja/06.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2016

Please change "For instance, the National Geographic places Cyprus entirely in Asia, and its geomorphology would corroborate this (it is a detached part of Asia Minor); however the country is politically a member of the European Union and it has an ethnic majority of Greeks"

to

"For instance, the National Geographic places Cyprus entirely in Asia, and its geomorphology is similar to Asia; however the country is politically a member of the European Union and it has an ethnic majority of Greek speaking Cypriots/ Greek Cypriots, and minority of Turkish speaking Cypriots/ Turkish Cypriots

= explains complex geological formation of Cyprus- not detached from Asia Minor, as popularly believed by some.

= Greeks are different to Cypriots

Aynel Tekogul (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed this as off topic. This page is supposed to be a "list of transcontinental countries". If you have a reference saying Cyprus is transcontinental, feel free to cite it. But if you just want to discuss the Europe-Asia boundary, there is another page dedicated to that and your material does not belong on this list page. --dab (𒁳) 08:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Cyprus is in Europe

If Azerbaijan and Armenia in Europe so is Cyprus. They are further east then us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.45.111 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Europe is not defined by an eastern longitude and a western longitude. CMD (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is slightly odd that a country that borders with Iran can be thought of as European  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.45.111 (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 

Azerbaijan is transcontinental, and thus relevant to this page, even though 95% of its population are in Asia. Cyprus may or may not be grouped with Europe, but in no sense is it "transcontinental", so I don't see why it is brought up. Armenia isn't transcontinental, it is entirely in Asia. This geographical topic is conflated with the European Union's "political assessment" of what is a "European country". This is an entirely political question and has nothing to do with the purely geographical issue of "transcontinental". If the EU decides that, say, New Zealand is "politically European", that's perfectly up to them. This will still not place New Zealand geographically in Europe, let alone make it "transcontinental". --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What is contiguous

Does it mean a land border or a bridge over a sea is enough? Is the UK contiguous with France due to channel tunnel?Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Tail wags dog

@Lemonade100: Your edit summary basically said that because the map is mistaken, the article should be mistaken too! The British Overseas Territories aren't part of the United Kingdom, and the Crown dependencies don't even belong to the U.K., they are personal possessions of the British monarch. It's the map that needs to be corrected. Largoplazo (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The de jure nature of it may be so but the de facto is certainly that they're all British. It seems remarkable that you persist otherwise as the citizenry are all automatically British Citizens - even the Crown Dependencies. There may not be a formal name for it like the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Kingdom of Denmark but it is a very similar set up and they are part of the British Country, which for the purpose of ease is the United Kingdom. --Lemonade100 20:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Lemonade100 - You are simply wrong. Whether or not their residents are British Citizens is irrelevant - the BOTs are definitively not part of the United Kingdom itself. For example, see here - "Since 2002, BOT citizens have been British citizens, with limited exceptions. However, the BOTs are not constitutionally part of the UK. Each has a distinct constitution and a unique legal relationship to the UK...." As our article correctly says, "These territories do not form part of the United Kingdom and, with the exception of Gibraltar, are not part of the European Union. Most of the inhabited territories are internally self-governing, with the UK retaining responsibility for defence and foreign relations." I have raised the point on the talk page for the map image itself and, if necessary, we will need to have a corrected map drawn separately. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle is correct. Citizenship is not the dispositive factor here, but the issue of governance. Many nations have territories that vary in autonomy and its denizens might be "citizens" of the mother-country (but usually with restrictions, such as voting in national elections), and have rights and benefits of the mother-country too, such as using the currency or protection via the military. But that does not mean they are an integral part of the nation. A good example is France, which treats some of its extracontintental holdings as no different than Paris, but others are "territories". It is the case that many of these overseas territories are bound to the British Crown solely in that they recognize the same ruling monarch as in the United Kingdom, however they are not within the UK itself and thus should not be counted for the purpose of this list. JesseRafe (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkey is marked as a "contiguous" trans-continental country, but the two parts are clearly divided by the Bosphorus and the Dardenelles, and there is no land bridge between the two (other than going all the way round the other side of the Black Sea through several other countries). Maybe the close proximity of the two sides is a mitigating factor, but if you're going down that route I think you'd have to include Spain as well - the African territory of Ceuta is really rather close to mainland Spain across the Gibraltar Strait, albeit not quite as close as the two sides of Istanbul. Interested to know what definition of "contiguous" is in use here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

a bridge connects the two sides there is no bridge between ceuta and mainland spain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2017

a man-made bridge can be hardly seen as a geographically distinguishing factor. Turkey should be listed as non-contiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwwin (talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Yemen transcontinental?

Two references (1, 2) in the article at #Asia and Africa claim to support an assertion of bicontinentality for Yemen (Asia and Africa). These assertions are tagged {{verification needed}} and {{better source}}. The discussion about this is already going on at Talk:Yemen#Is Yemen transcontinental?; please view the discussion and add comments there, so as not to splinter the discussion among several talk pages. Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

As I stated in this edit I disagree with this discussion not taking place on this talk page, and instead taking place on the Yemen article page, when it most clearly can influence the inclusion of other non-contiguous states on this list. Thus, to follow up on what I stated in my edit, Socotra is an island, owned by the mainly Asian state of Yemen. However, the question becomes does this island make Yemen a "transcontinental country"? I would advocate that is probably is one of the better examples of a "non-contiguous" "transcontinental country" that are present on this list. This is due to the sources clearly defining a separation between Asia and the archipelago of Socotra, placing Socotra clearly NOT on the Asian side.[2][3][4] I don't believe that I am surprising anyone with that statement, as the island of socotra is clearly lying South of the Gulf of Aden, and is clearly present on the Somali/East African Plate as well.[5][6][7] Now I highly doubt that we are going to locate a reliable source that definitively states that it is a "part of" Africa, as the island has historically always been a crossroad between East Africa and the Middle East, culturally, linguistically, etc. Also, I have noticed the repeated assertation of WP:SYNTH during edit summaries to claim that no current citations state that Yemen has a "transcontinental" status, using that wording specifically. Yet, the purpose of WP:SYNTH is not there to prevent us from making REASONABLE statements to the effect of the physical location of an island, but to prevent editors from jumping to unverifiable conclusions reached by taking a source out of context (WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not ubiquitous). If all editors take the ubiquitous approach of using SYNTH to prevent us from making a REASONABLE inference from the RS then we would have to exclude the majority of information present on en.wikipedia articles and instead construct all en.wikipedia articles using little more than direct quotes from sources. Socotra may be in a relative grey zone with regard to culture, linguistics, and history, yet the island is very much clearly not in the same geological continental mass as "Asia". However, it may not be strictly be geologically "African" either, as it was separated from Africa after Gondwana broke up ([8] "The archipelago is of the east Gondwanan origin similarly to the Madagascar and Seychelles in the south"). Thus I will state that, according to what is found in the sources, it is UNREASONABLE to state that Socotra is NOT associated with Africa. This is true even if Socotra is not directly a part of Africa, but, failing association with any of the other 7 commonly accepted continents, it is NOT UNREASONABLY associated with Africa. Thus meaning, it is NOT UNREASONABLE to say Yemen is a "non-contiguous transcontinental country". - Wiz9999 (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi AuH2ORepublican, Now I going to review your sources one by one and I am going to start from the worst to the less worse:

1-herebeanswers is a place where even me can put answers in so this is not a reliable source

2-educalingo a translation website?! Really? If my doctor asked me to do a research regarding serious subject like this and I gave him translation cite he would throw me outside the unversity.

3-tech2.org I couldn’t find any information about this news website outside the website please note that this is not tech2.com.au

4- lifepersona.com seems like an OR article also I couldn’t find who wrote this article it is just unreliable.

These are all of the English sources you provided I am not going to comment on the others as I think that they are just the same. I have a better idea. I have noticed that you have not fully understand what I have said here. I will try to put what I said in points

• Socotra was separated from Gondwanaland continent long time ago at that time there was nothing called African contient.
• Socotra is geographically an independent microcontinent just like New Zealand or Madagascar.

Now there are two elements here that I focus on:

1-The political position.

2-Geographical position.

Starting with Madagascar it is recognized politically to be in Africa but it is located off the southeast coast of Africa.

New Zealand is not recognized to be part of any continent and it is located on Oceania region since it is an independent microcontinent it is not recognized to be part of any continent.

Socotra it is considered politically to be part of Asia and geographically it It lies some 240 kilometres (150 mi) east off the coast of Somalia's Cape Guardafui and 380 kilometres (240 mi) south of the Arabian Peninsula so even geographically it is not in Africa but it is geologically ::located in the African plate and it is geologically more closely related to Dhofar of Oman.

Microcontinent are treated according to where they are located politically not to where they are geographically(even here socotra would not be in Africa even Madagascar is not geographically in Africa) or where they were coming from--SharabSalam (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion about whether Yemen is bicontinental or not will be decided entirely on what reliable sources have to say about Yemen. The outcome of the Yemen discussion will have no influence on other non-contiguous states on this list, as the reliable sources may say something completely different for other countries than they do for Yemen. As Wikipedia editors, we are not in a position to promote or to force a false consistency among articles on this topic if reliable sources say differently for the individual countries. Don't assume that the discussion for each country will turn out the same, regardless how illogical or inconsistent that might seem. The discussion about whether Yemen is bicontinental or not, is ongoing at Talk:Yemen#Is Yemen transcontinental? and is only about Yemen. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: "The outcome of the Yemen discussion will have no influence on other non-contiguous states on this list". The discussion of what constitutes a transcontinental country is most certainly is not only about Yemen! For if a decision is made affecting this single entry, then the other entries will have to fall under the same scrutiny, it is only logical. I challenge you to find a single source stating that one of the non-contiguous transcontinental countries we have listed are DEFINATIVELY considered a "transcontinental" country, as I do not believe any academic would be so bold. The point I am trying to convey to you is that the concept of a "non-contiguous transcontinental country" is a disputed concept to begin with. This is not being denied here in this article, but, contrarily, candidates meeting such a possible concept are merely being listed here as such. The real problem comes from the fact that the article does not have a firm criteria for this disputed concept, and what sort of entries should be excluded (e.g. micronations). I would propose that we now generate some realistic criteria for this article within this discussion, so that we can move forward from debating endlessly over the lack of general consensus by academics over "non-contiguous transcontinental countries". - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Prospective Transcontinental country criteria for inclusion

I will now propose a set of criteria for these entries on this list as per WP:LISTCRITERIA, feel free to comment, critique, and suggest any other criteria that I have not thought of. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Transcontinental country criteria for inclusion

The lists within this article include entries that meet the following criteria:

• Transcontinental states are sovereign states that are divided between one geographical continent and another.
• In this article, states are divided between Contiguous and Non-contiguous transcontinental states.
• Contiguous transcontinental states are states that contain a portion of their territory one one continent and a portion of their territory on another continent, while having these two portions connected via a natural geological land connection (e.g. Russia) or the two portions are immediately adjacent to one another (e.g. Turkey).
• Non-contiguous transcontinental states are states that contain a portion of their territory one one continent and a portion of their territory on another continent, while having these two portions separated by a significant enough distance, or body of water, to not be considered adjacent.
• For the purposes of this list, a seven-continent model model is assumed.
• Debate exists on the degree to which many non-contiguous transcontinental states can be considered transcontinental, due to portions of their territory often lying on distant islands that can be considered to be, or to not be, a part of a nearby secondary continent. The boundaries between the continents can be vague and can be subject to interpretation. For the purposes of the lists in this article, a state that has such a situation where this may apply is to nevertheless be included in the lists. (e.g. Socotra, Yemen and Madeira, Portugal)
• Debate exists on the degree to which states that have claimed territory within the Antarctic treaty system can have actual control of that claimed territory. They are included in these lists. (e.g. Chilean Antarctic Territory, Chile)
• Debate exists on the degree to which states that have territory on another continent that is an autonomous region and is not constitutionally an indistinguishable part of the parent state can be considered transcontinental. They are nevertheless included in these lists. (e.g. British Overseas Territories, the United Kingdom)
• Debate exists on the degree to which states that only have uninhabited island territory as a part of another continent can be considered transcontinental. They are nevertheless included in these lists. (e.g. Isla Aves, Venezuela)

Exceptions:

• Micronations, autonomous regions, and sub-national entities of sovereign states are to be excluded from the lists in this article if they are transcontinental themselves.
• States that have territory across sub-continental boundaries and plate boundaries, internal to continents, are excluded from this list as these do not constitute being transcontinental in the seven-continent model.
• States with limited recognition are excluded from the lists in this article, and any entry must be a UN member state or a part of the UN system.

References

Seeing as it has been two entire months now since I first proposed this, with absolutely no objections, comments, or suggested revisions to it, I will be implementing it now. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Where is the List?

This article has a lot of explanations, but where is the actual List of transcontinental countries? We need a clear list which people can easily look at, not these lengthy explanations! 103.228.188.121 (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a clear list for reasons spelled out in the article. All the countries that might be considered transcontinental under some definition or other are mentioned, but the article is, indeed, in no way a list. I propose renaming it Transcontinental country. Largoplazo (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The Americas as Separate Continents

Geography

The Americas is a term that only exists in English. In any other language it is all considered a same continent.

We are not going to discuss this by tectonic plates, since that way most of the existing continents would not make sense.

But, just because English speaking countries regard it a such means it is right. For example, in math: 1,000,000,000,000 = “one trillion” in English. Any any other language, that number is referred to as “one billion”.

No one is going to change the English language and its features. But since the English Wikipedia is the most read on the Internet, from people all over the world, a note mentioning this ambiguity situation should remain. LyonnaisLozannais (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making these comments on the talk page but coming to the talk page and then simply re-adding the same information elsewhere in the article is still edit warring. I have now asked you to discuss this here a number of times. Posting a comment once and then doing as you want with edits on the talk page is not how discussion works in Wikipedia editing. I have placed a warning on your talk page but I urge you to read WP:BRD and WP:WAR and not to revert edits again of other editors until consensus on this issue has been reached. If there is anything about Wikipedia editing you don't understand please ask. You may find after a discussion your suggestion edits do get added but until the issue is discussed you cannot simply do what you think is right. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Robynthehode (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

My reason for reverting LyonnaisLozannais (talk) edit is that the under the 'Criteria for Inclusion' section there is already a bullet point which states 'For the purposes of the lists within this article, a seven-continent model is assumed'. Wikipedia is about links - following the link it is clear that the seven continent model differentiates between North and South America and that below the table shown there there is the bullet point 'The seven-continent model is usually taught in most English-speaking countries including the United Kingdom and Australia, and also in China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and parts of Western Europe'. There is no need to add an extra text in this list article saying any variation of 'In English-speaking countries, North and South America are considered separate continents'due to the fact that any clarification can be found via the link to the continent article. Robynthehode (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine 2

More than 10 years ago there was a topic about Kerch Strait and Tuzla Island. I agree with it's reasons. And a little strange that it went unnoticed.--95.28.22.67 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is a dead link, it doesn’t work anymore. Anyhow, I suppose it is better like it is now that since that information is bogus, neither in China nor in Europe, “the Americas” exist, this phenomenon does happen with the English speaking countries mentioned.

The note simply says that it is using a seven-continent model, but gives no further detail. As mentioned before, the source cited is a dead link, and gave false information (only regarding China and Western Europe).

Mentioning that ”the Americas” as a concept only exists in English-speaking countries is not vital, but could be very useful. LyonnaisLozannais (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The Nat Geo link giving that information is a dead link. And plus, it isn’t true. Neither in China nor in Europa exists the notion of “the Americas”; nevertheless it is true that in English speaking countries this concept exists.

Nowhere in the Wikipedia article is more information about this, other than “for the purposes of this article, a seven-continent model will be used.” It gives no more information than that, and if more information from the source was included (now a dead link), it would be misleading.

A clarification of this feature of the English language is not vital, but could be very useful for readers that are not from an English-speaking country. That’s all. LyonnaisLozannais (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The link presented as a source is a dead link. Is this one: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/continent/

Anyhow, if further information were added from that now defunct source, it would be bogus, as neither in China nor in Western Europe (with the exception of Ireland and the UK) is there any notion of “the Americas” as two continents.

The bullet mentions that a seven-continent model would be used, but never gives any further information on that.

Since the English Wikipedia is the most read worldwide, a remark mentioning that seven-continent models almost exclusively exist in English-speaking countries, while not vital, would be very useful for readers that don’t come from one of such countries and that more often than not ignore this ambiguity across languages.

I’m not reverting anything, just mentioning why it would be good to add further information regarding the situation, and that it wouldn’t harm anyone, nor the article. LyonnaisLozannais (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of additional sources tags

I understand the addition of the OR tag, as only portions of this list article have citations included within it. I have made efforts in the past to mitigate the OR nature of this list with the inclusion of some criteria (in accordance with WP:LISTCRITERIA), but I know that the list overall still does need more sources included within it for the various entries. I am removing the addition of the unreliable sources tag until a justifiable reason can be given for it. As far as I can see the majority of the sources used in this article are referring to encyclopedia websites along with dictionary websites. The handful of other sources used I would also classify as quite reliable (WWF, National Geographic, News Website, etc.) - Wiz9999 (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

One of my concerns with this 'List of...' article is that the criteria used to create this list is, itself, almost WP:OR. It doesn't appear to be based upon an official list(s) of such 'transcontinental countries', but more upon a selection of relatively random criteria, with lots of mention of 'debate exists' with no evidence to show where that debate has occurred. Was that debate or uncertainty simply in the mind of the list creator? Or was it within international governmental debate and treaties? The absence of an article on Transcontinental countries (which is now just a redirect here) means that any 'List of..' article is rather at the whim of the list creator and editors, and potentially prone to a lot of WP:POV, WP:OR and unsourced or unreliable content. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

France in Asia

While the "Domaine national français en Terre sainte" (4 buildings or small districts in Jerusalem) is a very specific case, and while Israel in Asia is a very specific case, the end of the French section should probably be worded more accurately, in the fashion of: "French possessions in Asia are nowadays limited to the Domaine national français en Terre sainte.", in my humble opinion.

They are quite distinct from an embassy, and have been incessantly French for much longer than Israel (or the English administration of Palestine for that matter). The Église Sainte-Anne, for instance, is a truly French part of long history. It was built by Crusaders (most of them mainly Normands French, and under French command around 1140), restored by Napoleon III after he recovered it as a token for his support in the Crimean War by Sultan Abdulmejid I in 1856, and has been French-administered ever since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1D:3AB:A300:E47A:A79C:6B8:80A7 (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to here. fr:Domaine national français en Terre sainte is not listed on the article anywhere. The end of the 'French section', as you put it, seems fine to me. - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica's definition of Europe

Link: https://www.britannica.com/place/Europe/Land

According to Encyclopædia Britannica, not just the South Caucasus region, but the whole Caucasus region, including the North Caucasus, is a part of Asia. If their definition holds true, then Azerbaijan and Georgia will no longer be transcontinental countries.

I also noticed that they include Cyprus in Europe. The island country is politically and culturally a part of Europe but physiogeographically and geologically a part of Asia.

If they use culture to define Europe, then Armenia and Georgia should also be part of Europe. If they use physical geography to define Europe, then Cyprus should be a part of Asia too. I wonder what sort of criteria they use to divide Eurasia into Europe and Asia and whether we should treat their definition seriously. 120.16.170.30 (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Territory of Spain

The non-autonomous territory of Western Sahara formally depends on Spain

What are you talking about? 120.16.170.30 (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Falkland Islands and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands

@Wiz9999:: You recently edited the article, inter alia, to describe the Falkland Islands as "straddl[ing] the boundary of Antarctica." While that's a good way to describe the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, I don't think that it's an apt description for a group of islands whose southernmost point is further north than the northernmost point of (unambiguously South American) Tierra del Fuego and that are only 300 miles east of Patagonia. If the Falklands "straddle the boundary of Antarctica," then, a fortiori, so does Tierra del Fuego.

I also think that the way that that sentence was phrased previously--the Falklands are "located in" South America while the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are "associated with" South America--would be preferable, since there is far from a consensus among geographers that the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are located in South America while they clearly are "associated with" the continent (due to their prior administration by the Falkland Islands and the longstanding irredentist claims by Argentina). And wasn't the prior version's statement that the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are closer to mainland Antarctica than to mainland South America correct?

I agree with the other reversions and corrections that you made in your recent edit (regarding the Leeward Islands, etc.), but I think that the paragraph regarding the Falkland Islands and the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands should have been left as written. Please think it over. Cheers, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The Falklands Islands is a part of South America. The archipelago is located on the South American continental shelf, they share the same geological history with the adjacent exposed portion of the continent. Their status as a South American territory shouldn't be questioned.

For South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, things are more complicated. South Georgia Island is located on the Scotia Plate while the South Sandwich Islands is located on the South Sandwich Plate. The Scotia Plate is a minor plate and the South Sandwich Plate is a microplate associated with the Scotia Plate. Even though the Scotia Plate is an independent plate, it does contain the southern tip of South America. So we can say South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is somewhat more closely related to South America than Antarctica.

Personally, I consider South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to be a South American territory with some connections with Antarctica (e.g. biogeography, hydrology etc.). 120.16.170.30 (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Transcontinental countries in North America

The paragraphs about transcontinental countries in North America are unsourced and incorrect. The only possible transcontinental country in North America is Panama, not Trinidad and Tobago. Some sources use the Panama Canal instead of the Isthmus of Panama as the boundary between North America and South America, thus making Panama a transcontinental country.

For Trinidad and Tobago, most sources place this country in the Caribbean region, thus making it a North American country. A few sources argue that Trinidad and Tobago should be considered a South American country because the whole country is located on the South American continental shelf, thus making Trinidad and Tobago the only island country in South America. However, this is only a minor opinion, most sources just include Trinidad and Tobago in North America.

To sum up, Panama is a possible transcontinental country. Trinidad and Tabago can be considered either a North American or South American country, but it is not a transcontinental country.

Although not a country, the Dutch ABC islands is in a similar category like Trinidad and Tobago (either North American or South American, but not transcontinental). 120.16.43.82 (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that Panama, Indonesia, Turkey, Russia, and Kazakhstan should be in the "Dependent on their continental boundaries used".

Panama and Indonesia's boundaries are disputed, as is Kazakhstan, Turkey, and Russia's boundaries are. Depending on the boundary, it would placed them in Eurasia or Europe or Asia.

Plus Columbia should be transcontinental if Panama is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodguyas (talk • contribs) 01:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Only Panama is dependent on the continental boundaries used. Some sources use the Panama Canal instead of the Isthmus of Panama as the boundary between North America and South America, thus making Panama a transcontinental country.

Indonesia, Turkey, Russia, and Kazakhstan are almost universally recognized as transcontinental countries unless you are from a country which uses the 6-continent (combined Eurasia) model. In the English-speaking countries though, we use the 7-continent model, it would be weird if we exclude these countries from the list of transcontinental countries.

As for Colombia, it will always be considered a transcontinental country due to the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina (a Colombian overseas territory in Central America). 120.16.43.82 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Greece

I have removed Greece as a transcontinental country in this article for these reasons: Greece, according to this article, is partly Asian. But Greek islands are typically considered European and it just seems odd to me that Greece is being classified as partly Asian, which just simply is not true. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Islands push the cultural ambiguity of continents to weird places, but such ambiguity means the idea of truth isn't that strong. As for the specific case, Greece has islands not only offshore of Anatolia, but south of Anatolia. CMD (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I don't see how that matters. Cyprus is entirely under Turkey and always considered a European (and a member of the EU). Greece is definitely not a transcontinental country and anyone making that assertion better have multiple reputable sources to support that claim. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Cyprus is in the Asia group at the UN. That said, taking political boundaries and sorting land into continents by that criteria would result in zero transcontinental countries, so it seems not a useful tool for this particular list. CMD− (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Some people always confuse physical geography with political geography. In political geography, Greece, Cyprus, and Armenia are all European countries while Indonesia is an Asian country and Egypt is an African country.

In physical geography though, Armenia (south of the Greater Caucasus watershed), Cyprus (island on the Asian continental shelf), and some Greek islands close to Asia Minor (again on the Asian continental shelf) are clearly parts of Asia, Indonesia's Western New Guinea region (a part of the Australia-Guinea continent) is clearly a part of Oceania, and Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and the Isthmus of Suez (east of the Suez Canal) are clearly parts of Asia. These classifications are supported by hard scientific evidence.

Just as CMD have pointed out, this article is supposed to be a list of transcontinental countries according to the definitions used in physical geography (i.e. continents separated by natural barriers, not political boundaries). If we apply the definitions used in political geography, there would be no need for the existence of this article as Russia would be the only transcontinental country in the world. 120.16.43.82 (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2022

Turkey falls almost wholly within the in Western Asia

Please remove "the" from this statement. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 09:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

France also has territories in Asia, more precisely in Jerusalem. The 4 following "territories" are under French sovereignty:

• The Church of Saint Anne
• The Tombs of the Kings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tombs_of_the_Kings_(Jerusalem) - See the french flag and the "République Francaise" (French Republic) sign
• The Benedictine monastery in Abu Ghosh
• Church of the Pater Noster

Maasym (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: These are extraterritorial areas, not areas of sovereignty. CMD (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Egypt

Egypt should be on the list since Sinai is a part of Asia 2402:B400:4194:77FE:EFC4:B52C:23E7:8524 (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Iceland

Iceland should be on the list with transcontinental countries, as it sit on the top of mid Atlantic rigde, so it both at part of the European continent and the the north American continent. 88.83.18.223 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Preferential treatment and dubious map

Can someone please remove the map in the “Asia and Europe” section and add a note to the section that the provided information is disputed? I seem unable to do so myself. Here’s my reasoning:

• The current map claims to depict various continental boundaries used up to the 1920s; however, even a quick search of this website reveals this isn’t accurate, especially with regard to the Caucasus. For example, here’s an Austrian map from 1892 published by Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, which includes the entire Caucasus in Europe. Also, this British physical map of Europe from the turn of the century goes even further. There’s clearly ample precedent of various lines drawn through the Caucasus. It seems arbitrary that this particular map excludes them but includes others. I think the current map should be replaced with something like this, which I think provides a more comprehensive overview.

Browsed some more and found yet another map that covers the Caucasus and is not accounted for here. It's a Russian map from 1874 at the British Library. So the notion that this area was not included in the 19th century maps simply does not hold up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:455A:F666:4174:26E2 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Also, the section describes only one definition of Europe/Asia boundaries, taking it as an unquestionable fact, when in reality and from what I can tell definitions vary quite a bit. Talking about specific percentages, especially with regard to grey areas such as the Caucasus, seems arbitrary since there has never been universal agreement on this topic.

2600:1700:20:1D80:78BC:C0DF:52EA:113F (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

Someone please (1) remove the map in the “Asia and Europe” section and (2) add a note to that section stating neutrality is disputed. Here’s my reasoning:

• The current map claims to depict various continental boundaries used up to the 1920s; however, even a quick search of this website reveals this isn’t accurate, especially with regard to the Caucasus. For example, here’s an Austrian map from 1892 published by Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, which includes the entire Caucasus in Europe. Also, this British physical map of Europe from the turn of the century goes even further. There’s clearly ample precedent of various lines drawn through the Caucasus. It seems arbitrary that this particular map excludes them but includes others. I think the current map should be replaced with something like this, which I think provides a more comprehensive overview.

Browsed some more and found yet another map that covers the Caucasus and is not accounted for here. It's a Russian map from 1874 at the British Library. So the notion that this area was not included in the 19th century maps simply does not hold up.

• Also, the section describes only one definition of Europe/Asia boundaries, taking it as an unquestionable fact, when in reality and from what I can tell definitions vary quite a bit. Talking about specific percentages, especially with regard to grey areas such as the Caucasus, seems arbitrary since there has never been universal agreement on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1d80:ac39:9450:f706:3e1f (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

For Georgia and Azerbaijan, remove percentages and population figures for "European" portions. Even if one was to take this border definition at it's face value, which is itself questionable, these numbers are simply not supported by anything. Who measured that it is 5% and not 6%? Or that half a million people live there and not 300,000? It's complete conjecture.

Change "mainly on the Asian portion of the Caucasus" to "mainly southern portion of the Caucasus". The question of where exactly the line goes has been interpreted variously, so it doesn't seem neutral to be labeling it like this.

If someone doesn't fix the above, warnings should be affixed at minimum, such as these that I have encountered on similar pages

and

. These should be affixed because it all seems very misleading and poorly sourced right now. 2600:1700:20:1D80:10F:906F:90D9:3D9 (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Given the text specifies subdivisions, presumably the land and population takes from those. All of the lines throughout the article are interpreted variously, so presuming the article should exist, then elaborating only on the most common line seems prudent. The borders are covered more specifically elsewhere. CMD (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Presumably? Presuming based on what, sources that don't exist or have not been provided? I don't think these countries track their population by "European" and "Asian" portion, I challenge you to find such meticulous official statistics. These should be removed or tags affixed because whoever added this cannot just pull numbers out of nowhere and not be questioned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:D95E:73F4:893E:63A0 (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022 (2)

For Georgia and Azerbaijan, delete percentages and population figures for "European" portions. Even if one was to take this border definition at it's face value, which is itself questionable, these numbers are simply not supported by anything. Who measured that it is 5% and not 6%? Or that half a million people live there and not 300,000? It's complete conjecture.

Change "mainly on the Asian portion of the Caucasus" to "mainly in the southern portion of the Caucasus".

If someone doesn't fix the above, warnings should be affixed at minimum, such as these that I have encountered on similar pages

and

. 2600:1700:20:1D80:D95E:73F4:893E:63A0 (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: The border definition is explained and its use justified in the first paragraph of the section you are requesting be edited. The specific change you request makes little sense, the point of the article is to list and briefly describe countries that happen to be on two continents, which requires rigid geographical divisions. Please familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV before suggesting that a neutrality tag be added; the content in question does not violate NPOV. I agree that it is not adequately sourced and may contain original research, so I will add that warning to the section. Please ensure that you are familiar with relevant guidelines and policies, don't suggest to add warnings because you have "encountered them on similar pages". Actualcpscm (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, please do not submit duplicate requests. @CMD I agree with the "original research" tag suggestion, since it is unclear where the figures in question come from, so I have added it for now. However, in general, submitting duplicate edit requests is bad practice and generally discouraged. If you believe that an editor who has denied your request was wrong, please reply to their comment with your reasoning and re-open the same request, don't submit a new one. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

Dear co-ordinator.

I would like to change List_of_transcontinental_countries in two specific points:

1 - Portugal : the country is present in three continents Europe, Africa, and North America, as it is stated in the current text; I have seen no reason to have its own unique class, as many other countries have. In this case I will change the part of the text, which leads agains this specific class.

2 - Timor-Leste : the country is classified along side Indonesia, which I believe it is not a welcome gathering of countries. I pretend to create is own entry, in the class Asia and Oceania. Then, I will add the fact that Atauro island is a part of the Daya archipelago, being this typically classified in Oceania, as Indonesia does to the rest of the archipelago.

No more reason to do something else here.

Kind regards. Caledonya9 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Caledonya9:  Not done As to your first request, the fact that Flores and Corvo are on the North American tectonic plate is not a good enough reason to classify Portugal as part of North America itself. As the article states, geologic tectonic plate separation does not necessarily define geographical continental distinction.

And the second: even adding the claim that the Daya islands are in Oceania, which you have not provided any sources for, the relevant information about Timor-Leste and Indonesia is still almost identical, so it would be impossible to give them seperate entries without repitition. small jars tc 14:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

UK

Y'know, now that i think about it, UK technically is transcontinental, because of its islands and colonies. Bermuda, North America South Georgia, South America Diego Garcia, Africa & Asia Pitcairn Islands, Oceania British Antarctic Territory, Antarctica 148.103.228.90 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The UK government does not consider these areas to be part of the UK. CMD (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@148.103.228.90 The United Kingdom consists of Great Britain – the three countries England, Scotland and Wales – and Northern Ireland. The entire territory of these are in Europe. The UK is not a transcontinental state. That said, it is included in this list because the British Crown & Parliament retain full sovereignty over a number of ex-colonies, which are located in every continental region. Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)