"  

 ==Great Britain== 
 figure for great britain is too low. other wikipedia articles agree it is the 8th largest as does times world atlas. 
 84000 sq. miles is nearer. Perhaps someone has subtracted the water area which is still on the island? 

 I'm curious where Sicily and Cyprus would fit into this list. How far would it have to be extended to include those?   

 If one considers Australia and Antarctica to be islands why not also include Eurafrasia (81,163,215 km²) and The Americas (37,785,238 km²)? Just a thought...   

 I agree with you, but it might take a while before the main editors of wikipedia see it that way.   

 There's inconsistency in describing islands of the UK, e.g. Barra, Sheppey and Shetland Mainland among others are described as being in the United Kingdom, whereas Skye and Mull (and others) as being in Scotland, the Isle of Wight in England, and Anglesey/Ynys Mon as being in Wales. As all the other islands just have their national location rather than subnational (e.g Maui is described as being in the United States and has the US flag next to it rather than being described as being in Hawaii and having the Hawaiian state flag depicted), for consistency within the article they should all be changed to United Kingdom.  
    

 :Agree - I've made this change, but (hopefully) to prevent it being changed back, I've said e.g. ""United Kingdom (specifically Scotland)"".     

  
 Did anyone make sure the figures for the continents are actually only mainland?   
 : I don't think these numbers belong here anyway. It is a list of islands, not of landmasses. Does anyone vote for keeping them?  
 :: I vote to keep - the distinction between landmasses and islands is essentially arbitrary and if the figures are accurate they should stay for comparison's sake.   
 ::I also vote to keep, same reasons.  

 -Yeah.  I'd say keep the land mass figures for sure.  But make sure that they are only the areas of the mainlands, as they are analogous to islands. 

 ::Vote to keep too. Warofdreams states the case for inclusion well.   

 Does anyone know where the figures came from, and how accurate the source is?  My atlas gives slightly different figures for most large islands, and also lists Great Britain as larger than Victoria Island.   22:41 BST 21/8/04 
 :The areas for the smaller islands (below rank 100, the ones I've added) come from various sources.  Some come from the Wikipedia articles, some from consensus on various websites or from official websites, and many from http://users.erols.com/jcalder   
 : I added islands 28 to 100 and the values come from http://users.erols.com/jcalder/index.html, too.   

 :My source is a Philip's Concise World Atlas, and there's occasionally quite large discrepancies between what it lists and what's here eg Celebes is given by Philips as 189,000sq km/73,000sq mi, and by the current article as 174,600 sq km/67,400 sq mi.  I don't have any other printed sources to hand so can't check if Philip's is wrong.  Anyone else? 

 :Also, just occurred to me, isn't Celebes called Sulawesi these days? 

 :  

 I'd be a bit more careful about the atlases you use. I just found a dandy gaffe in the page: The figures made Great Britain bigger than Victoria, going by km², but vice versa going by sq mi. I have corrected this, as every other source I've ever consulted made Great Britain #8 in the world. 

 Also, I'm for ditching the sq mi figures. Only one country of any importance uses those anymore, and they clutter the page up something awful. ———Kelisi 2005/2/7 

 I'd say keep them.  There is nothing better about square kilometers than square miles.  And it is a pain in the ass when you want to know a figure like that, and you have to convert after looking it up on the internet. 

 Adjustments 
 I have now also adjusted a few figures slightly. If my source is anything to go by, some of the figur