Template talk:Regions of the world

message: Is there any particular reason the following designations were not used?
* America: North America, Patagonia, South America
* Asia: Near East
* Other: The Mediterranean
I realize packing in every possible region is impossible, but I wager these usages are far more common than, for instance, Northeast Africa (and why Northeast instead of Horn of Africa) or North Asia (yet no Northeast Asia, which is a familiar zone to frequent flyers). - choster 5 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)
:Yes, why is not there Northeast Asia to which some parts of Siberia and Far East of Russia, Japan, western coast of The United States, China, North Korea, South Korea and Mongolia belong? --GenuineMongol (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions

message: This is for disambig link repair, currently Congo is a disambig page, there is no page related to the geographic area "congo" to replace it with, only the countries Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo, it doesn't seem like either of those is appropriate but I could be wrong. cohesion | talk 01:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing [[Congo]] 

message: Hello!  To rectify the apparent imbalance in the categorising of various continents and subregions in this template (e.g., Europe/Asia, yet Americas), I've reorganised it to consolidate Europe and Asia into Eurasia.  Another way to do this is to separate out as follows:
*Americas: North America...; South America... 
*Eurasia: Asia...; Europe... 
I'm fine with either or, but a melange of the two doesn't make sense.  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony 12:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation of template 

message: This is a highly contraversial ethnic region with undefined borders. Basicaly it can occupy the entier galaxy r could be the size of a pea. Borders are determined by the artistic nature of the person drawing. Article displays the flag as well as other goodies of the proposed kurdish nation.
I hence believe its presence is inaproporate on this template. Put the kurdistan article in contrast with other articles and you will see what I mean. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kurdistan]]

message: Moreover, I'm unsure why Southern Asia was recently created distinct from South Asia – usage differentiating the two is unclear at best and this can only promote confusion.  (This is different, however, from North America/Northern America or South Africa/Southern Africa ... where usage is generally distinct with cited examples.)  Is there a reason why one article cannot deal with notions of both?  One should redirect to the other and, without, objection, I will do this.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Southern Asia]]/[[South Asia]] 

message: Currently the template has Western Asia. Is that correct? From reading the above I'm guessing the display text is set according to one preference/standard and the page name is set according to some other preference/standard. Can anyone clarify? Ewlyahoocom 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is correct: to forego ambiguity and as part of a neutral attempt to organise said content, the UN scheme for geographic subregions has been adopted here (particularly for entries on the first line of each continent) and elsewhere, whereby Western Asia is indicated (which redirects to Southwest Asi).  This also precludes apparent inconsistency in the template: e.g., Southwest Asia, yet Eastern Europe.  Personally, I'd prefer if the article (and others like it) were moved to the UN entitlements, but one can't have everything just yet. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southwest Asia / Western Asia 

message: I've been looking at the template:region and the template:continent and they seem similar enough that with a few additions to the region template, the continent template would become redundant and could be discontinued. The inspiring thought came when I saw Antarctica was a featured article and thought the other continents should be as well, and while browsing over Africa saw three geographic tables which just screamed "clean me up!" Xaxafrad 04:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Continent features continents only, whereas Template:Regions of the world features continental divisions, subdivisions, etc. For now, I'd say keep both, as this seems a useful distinction. Not quite sure what/where your African inspiration lies...?  Regards, David Kernow 06:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australasia vs Australia 

message: Isnt it superflouous to link to Latin America twice from the North AND South America regions? Is Central America "good" enough to have it's own category, or should it be deleted from one of the Americas? Geographically, I would place it in North, but culturally, in South. Any other thoughts? Xaxafrad 05:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Latin America appearing twice, I think it's because it straddles North (well, Central) America and South America. Re Central America, so far as I'm aware the Americas are usually first divided into North America and South America, then into smaller regions which include Central America as part of "North" America. I agree, though, that there's much to be said for an initial three-way division of the Americas (into North, Central and South America) but I don't think that's the norm... Anyone else know more?  Regards, David Kernow 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the current arrangement is sufficient: mentioning Latin America in both North America and South America, which is true.  This sub/regional template is (rightly) geared along a geographic/physiographic hierarchy for ease, not a sociopolitical one per se.  I generally hark of DK's sentiments ... however, since Central America is a subregion of the North American/American continent, a three-way split based on that is unjustified.  Similarly, Caucasia is a subregion in Eurasia straddling both Europe and Asia, though I see little debate to split those hairs ... nor should we.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin America 

message: I replaced Northern America with North America. It doesn't make sense for this template to lack a link to North America, and the term "Northern America" is by comparison quite obscure. I am aware that including Central America and North America causes some overlap of coverage, but it would be even worse to leave out the article at North America. I believe that including North, Central, and South America on the template is the best configuration, with the fewest faults. --Yath 06:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I have reverted this to "Northern" as per discussions above. It seems that most people agree that it is least conflictual if the template follows the UN system even though this excludes "North America". Note that the first few lines of the page on Northern America does link to the constituent countries so this system is navigationally efficient. Thanks Andeggs 22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the above discussion shows any consensus for a total adherence to the UN system, just that the UN system is a useful guide. Keeping "Northern America" is both silly and violates the basic Wikipedia policy of using common names. - SimonP 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree, we should not use the term "Northern America" for various reasons, mainly because it is used by the UN only for statistical convinience under an economic point of view. The most world-wide known educational systems divides the Americas in North, Central and South. Although "North America" includes the countries of Central America, a clarification should be made in the Article "Central America" to inform that some countries teach that Central America is a subdivions of the North American continent. AlexCovarrubias 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having both Northern and North America seams absurd. I understand the previous version was too big, but it better described the regions of the world. UN system, based in economics, is not necesarily better. What about having "North America (Central America)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Marianocecowski (talk • contribs) 
Exactly, I think its silly to have North and Northern America, or do you think we should include South and Southern America??, most people around the world divide the Americas/America, into 4 simple regions: North America, Central America, the Caribbean and South America, just because the UN includes the region called "Northern North America, doesn't mean that its the most appropriate way to divide it. Supaman89 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern/North America 

message: I have no major problem with this template except the tacit assertion that these are THE regions of the world rather than just one classification among many.  An encyclopedia, as wikipedia is supposed to be, has the potential to come across as authoritative and objective, and care should be taken, I think, to make sure readers know something like a list of regions of the world is a generalized classification scheme with a specific point of view, and that other equally valid systems exist.
What I mean is, this template's system is a fine system of (relatively large) regions from the point of view of Political geography.  Of course there are other branches of geography (see Template:Geography topics).  From the viewpoint of Cultural geography one might argue for different regions.  I suspect most of the criticisms about this template relate to people approaching it from a political or a cultural point of view, as these are perhaps the two most common ways people think about the world and its regions.  Some other common ways of thinking about the world and its regions include the viewpoints of Economic geography (example region, "NAFTA"), Environmental geography ("Amazon rainforest"), Biogeography ("ecoregions"), Geomorphology ("Appalachian Mountains"), Climatology ("the Horse latitudes"), and so on.  And each of these points of view will result in radically different "regions of the world". Pfly 07:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Pfly, I think; how about amending the template's name and title to something like "Geopolitical regions of the world"...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree with this too. We could be even blunter and call it "Geopolitical regions (according to the United Nations)".Andeggs 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I prefer keeping "of the world"... I volunteer to wait a day or so (in case anyone else passes by with an objection or alternative) and then rename. David (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One of many regional systems

message: "Eurasian" leads to the article Central Asia. What has Central Asia do to with European geography and/or culture? If you care to read the article Russia it says quite clearly that Russia is a transcontinental country (i.e.: a country with parts in both continents). I propose that either someone finds a better article and links it to (something to do with Europe) or failing that it should be removed altogether. Flamarande (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Central Asia is sometimes considered part of Europe under the umbrella of Greater Europe. Jkliajmi (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I'm not sure if agree with that (Central Asia) but as I'm not intent in imposing my personal opinion in this matter perhaps we should use the 'Greater Europe' article instead. At least it also includes Greenland (geographically located in North America) and a few others. If you truly want to include all regions/countries with cultural ties with Europe use the proper article (i.e.: the so-called "Greater European sphere of influence"). Flamarande (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure what you mean. Perhaps if you carry out the changes on the article, we can see how we can proceed from there? :) Jkliajmi (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the changes make sense. I guess it avoids ambiguity. Jkliajmi (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I think that the map in that article presents some problems (it includes Jordan, and some "suspect" countries in Asia). But that is not a matter of concern for this template. To be safe I'm going to include the proper requests for improvement in the article. Flamarande (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I have changed the name of the link "Eurasia" to "Central Asia". If that was all you wanted reverted, you should have just changed that; but your original revert left a whole variety of valid changes undone. 78.146.17.244 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurasian 

message: Compared to other regions here, Middle East is incredibly biased, controversial, ambiguous and subjective term. It's simply not in the same league with terms like Europe, Asia, Africa. I'm going to remove it. -- Mttll (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted. Yes it is a completely Eurocentric term, but unfortunately it's a very common one, and it's one of the most well-known cultural regions of the world. Without it, the template would be flawed. Night w (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle East 

message: Polar gets on this template, Arctic and Antarctic, but what about antiPolar? The Tropics and surrounding subtropics ? 70.24.244.248 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Polar and antiPolar?

message: I would like to propose Caucasus be added to this template alongside Middle East under both the Europe and Asia headings. sephia karta | dimmi 19:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucasus 

message: We should have either 7 regions (Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, Polar Regions, South America), or 6 regions (Africa, Australia, Eurasia, North America, Polar Regions, and South America), or 5 regions (Africa, Americas, Australia, Eurasia, and Polar Regions). But having Americas as one entity and Eurasia as two different is not justified as physiographically Eurasia is a single continent and landmass, but North America and South America are two different landmasses. FonsScientiae (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regions 

message: I'm pretty sure Maryland is not a part of Asia. Or at-least the Maryland that is linked is not in Asia but the United States. As pointed out by FoulCoke on reddit.com/r/maryland
108.45.74.6 (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maryland in Asia 

message: This template is too much. It's a big unwieldy mess that in trying to include EVERYTHING has become meaningless and hard to navigate. Suggest it gets wound back to its former size and just be a normal template. ---Merbabu (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on that. By the way the US and Canada occupies a dis-proportioned part of it. Lappspira (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTT