Talk:Americas (terminology)/Archive 1

message: Perhaps a section documenting common missuages or confusions of terms might be appropriate? That would explain - in more detail - the (mis)uses of terms such as Columbia/Colombia and America, and the possible reprecussions of these? Robdurbar 10:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already addressed somewhat at Columbia; I've since added a link to that article.  To expand on the topic in this article would detract from its primary purpose.  When creating this article, it was intentionally decided to only model it on British Isles (terminology) in title only precisely because of that article's volume and lack of focus/sourcing.  Perhaps varied usage of other terms as proposed requires a dedicated article instead – e.g., Columbia (terminology)?  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuses

message: I'd like to suggest that Americas (terminology) be moved to America.
"America" has historically meant the entire continent (or as some geographers might say, "both continents"). It is not just the country which evolved from the 13 British colonies into "the United States of America". At all times during this evolution, the "USA" consisted of only a small portion and there has been plenty left over.
Geographically, America (continent) has been divided (at least in the English speaking world) into North America and South America. However, socially and culturally there is another significant division: Anglo-America and Latin America. 
In the Spanish language, the terms norteamerica and norteamericano do not include Mexico or Central America. Curiously, in English the terms "North America" and "North American" typically do include them. This causes confusion or irritation to Mexicans and other residents of "the Americas". 
*A Mexican will typically say that he is "an American" since the continent he was born on is called America (at least in his own language).
*A Mexican will rarely or never refer to himself as a norteamericano.
Pimsleur's Spanish (a language course geared toward native speakers of English) cautions students to be aware of the usage of the Spanish term norteamericano and how it relates to the U.S. usage of "American" and "North American". --Uncle Ed 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment the article America is doing an excellent job of (1) being a disambiguation page for the various meanings and uses of the word America that might prompt a Wikipedia user to enter it into the search field and (2) attracting vandals and the like away from other articles.  The article Americas (terminology), on the other hand, treats some of the issues you've brought up above.  I don't see a reason to move the latter into the space held by the former.  At this time, the article Americas (terminology) does not treat how Spanish-speakers label various areas of the western hemisphere.  There is another article (Use of the word American) that does discuss how American is used differently by both Spanish- and English-speakers. -Acjelen 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in full agreement, Acj. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is the weight of that use.  In the U.S., America and American are used to mean the United States in a constant, pervasive, overwhelming way.  This use is as likely to cease in the United States as its citizens are to give up English for Mandarin Chinese. -Acjelen 13:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an international and global resource and thus, if you say "commonly refered to as America", it would incorrectly imply that everyone around the world calls the U.S. 'America'. Reference to the fact that only U.S. citizens do so is imperative in this case to convey what really goes on in the world. If this were "Wikipedia U.S.A", then so be it, but it's Wikipedia English.--Cuyaya 18:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "What really goes on in the world" is that America is a common noun and American a common adjective for the United States.  Is it illogical?  Yes.  Is it misguided?  Sure.  Does it cause translation problems with Spanish.  Definitely.  But I'm not sure why the Spanish language should disrupt the English Wikipedia. -Acjelen 20:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is common, but only in the U.S.. And it has nothing to do with Spanish translations or any other language. Also, I deal with Britons all the time at work, and they preffer to use the expresion "The States". If a clear and truthful explanation can be given, why omit it? I won't argue with you the fact that the adjective American IS used worldwide, but that's another issue, which I am not denying. --Cuyaya 12:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I live in New Zealand, and there is NO confusion over what American refers to.  The are some academics who try to make a political point over the issue now and then, but if you look in native NZ media, news, etc., American and America consistently refer to the United States and its citizens.  My wife and her family are from Italy (Latin country by definition), and I have only ever been referred to as an Americano there.  I have travelled all over Italy and this is true.  Do a search on La Repubblica's website for the term Americano.  No confusion there.  It is simply untrue that American is only used in the United States.  It is propaganda to say so.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested page moves

message: Hawkfly,
I don't see the need for your new second paragraph. Will Wikipedia readers find this article excepting treatment of the United States?  As you write yourself, no one uses Americas in the plural to refer to the United States.  Perhaps if you explain your thinking here in on the discussion page, I and other editors will understand. -Acjelen 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree with those points. However, this is not mentioned on that page. I will make a smaller note of farther down on the page with a source. Hawkfly 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As above: usage details are better placed in Americas and/or Use of the word American, not in this article (intended as a brief overview; see Columbia chat above) nor on the DAB page which is meant to succinctly clarify ambiguities and not embellish on extraneous information regarding usage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree, they are better placed here. It is about the use of the word Americas, not American. The page title refers to the terminolgy of the Americas- just what the very short paragraph is about. Hawkfly 18:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have moved it (the redone paragraph) to America. You have enough trouble with vandalism and people changing the order that I will save you the annoyance of continuing this debate. Hawkfly 19:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New second paragraph 

message: I went to a bookstore in New York City yesterday. They had a nice, rolled-up wall map showing North and South America labelled collectively as America. This is the first time in my life I've seen this. I guess times have changed, and American English along with it.
I daresay "the Americas" is more a term which refers to the several entities called "(blank) America". Now, bowing to the inevitable, it seems that America (region) or America (continent) is the preferred geographical term.
There is no use fighting over this, merely because there is a fight over the Use of the term American. Some people want "America" and "American" to refer to America (USA) and others don't. We should just be clear and helpful to our readers. --Uncle Ed 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All this is fine and good, but it doesn't obviate sourced and clear definitions already indicated.  Moreover, the Americas article expatiates on the topic of usage.  Apropos: the UN, in its geographic scheme for sub/regions, clearly delineates contituents within the Americas, including North and South.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Americas vs. America

message: One of the hemisphere maps (:Image:LocationWHNorthernAmerica.png) shows Mexico in "Northern America", which contradicts the UN definition of this subregion. Please clarify. --Wing Nut 08:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  This is some kind of error.  I don't recall that black band at the bottom of the image either.  If anyone knows how to fix it, that would be appreciated. -Acjelen 14:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, someone changed the image yesterday.  Good eye Wing Nut.  I've restored it now. -Acjelen 14:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Location of Mexico]]

message: This article is called "Americas (terminology)" but I find nothing in it that I consider to be terminology as such. The info I would expect to be under this title is actually at Americas#Usage, with related info at Use of the word American. This article is actually "Divisions of the Americas" or "Regions of the Americas". I suggest this article be merged into Americas. Nurg 04:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name was patterned after the article British Isles (terminology), though there are significant differences between the two.  This article was created so that Wikipedia would have a central place for information about how the Western Hemisphere is divided up (since not all English users do it the same way), but have that information away from the disambiguation pages and the articles proper.  The main issues were the number of continents and that not only Mexico but also Central America are part of North America (if you recognize North America).  I'd like to see this article continue to be separate from Americas. -Acjelen 05:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it does remain separate, how about giving it an accurate title like Divisions of the Americas? And I've just discovered Subregions of the Americas which could be merged in here too. Nurg 10:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with divisions vs. terminology is the problem of differing schemes.  The goal of the article is to point out that different people will use different terms to describe the various parts of the Western Hemisphere.  As for Subregions of the Americas, that article gives only the UN view of things and probably needs a POV tag. -Acjelen 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology or Divisions? Merge with 'Americas' 

message: 'Americas' is just a neologism to name 'a country with no name', the United States of America. America is the right name for the whole new world (from the point of view of the Europeans, of course) after Amerigo Vespucci, who sailed for the Spanish Crown
I completely agree with you. Spread the word. Because here we can't do much. --Shadowy Crafter 02:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Americas' does not exist 

message: I cannot say about the terminoly used by the other Latin American countries, but in Brazil people say North America and South America instead of American as sugest in note 1.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.206.179.100 (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "North America and South America" X "America" 

message: I do not understand the rationale behind the inclusion of the West Indies in the political divisions section. As far as I understand the purpose of this article, this section is making reference to all political divisions that make or have made use of the term "Americas" -hence British North America, and the like. The inclusion of a political division that does not include the name justifies the inclusion of any political division within the Americas, regardless of the name. I believe they should not be included in the list, as it might imply that these are the "only" political divisions within the Americas. --the Dúnadan 17:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article is intended not merely to list and expand on all regions in the 'Americas' having 'America' in the name, but to list and clarify the 'major' constituents of the Americas too.  Having the West Indies/Caribbean merely makes it more comprehensive.  To put it another way: if they were missing, their absence would be obvious and would beckon for someone to add them.  Corticopia 14:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The purpose of the article is not to clarify the "major" constituent of the Americas, as "major" is a subjective and interpretative term, and the selection of the "major regions" is arbitrary. Why not add economic regional constituencies (i.e. Caricom, NAFTA, Mercosur)? Why not add countries? Why not repeat the same information in Americas? The name of this article is Americas (terminology) [bold mine]. If you wish to make this article comprehensive then the title should simply be Americas.  But the addendum "terminology" makes the inclusion of "West Indies" irrelevant and arbitrary. --the Dúnadan 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would support including major economic regions of the Americas in a different section (including NAFTA, CAFTA) and perhaps relevant military and other groupings like NORAD. Anyhow, including the other regions of the Americas merely makes the article comprehensive (as an encylopedic article should be): compare with Macedonia (terminology), British Isles (terminology), which contain entities not eponymously named... Corticopia 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As usual, you've engaged in an edit war, in which I choose not to participate. My first edit was WP:BOLD, your subsequent edits are WP:OWN. In any case, the expansion of this article will only make it a duplicate (or an unnecessary fork) or Americas. I've expressed my opinion, I've been reverted. I'm done here. --the Dúnadan 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read what BRD means: you boldly edit (or in this case delete), you are reverted based on a rational argument (with examples), and we then discuss.  The entries of note have been in place preety much since the article was created.  But with attitude as above, good luck to you.  Corticopia 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) You were also reverted based on a rational argument. But you kept reverting. I will not engage in an edit war... and I'll avoid the headache. I have enough knowledge of your edit-pattern to know that it will lead us nowhere; (2) Deletion is an edit, as valid as addition. Editing can be deleting, arranging or adding. I don't know what you intended to say with your comment.  (3) Even if the entries of note have been pretty much since the article was created, that doesn't mean they are appropriate. You know, status quo doesn't mean "perfect". Many an article has been in an "unperfect" condition, until someone challenged the status quo. (4) Expanding this article will only make it a duplicate of Americas. (4) Good luck to you too. --the Dúnadan 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Acknowledged. Corticopia 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: West Indies

message: The sources given did not support the region NA = Canada + USA + Mexico.  The American Heritage Reference Collection (really MSN Encarta)  gave North America as composed of Canada, the USA, Mexico, Bermuda, Greenland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon.  The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia  includes Canada, the USA, Mexico, and the West Indies although it excludes Greenland.  Spacepotato 21:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The references are fine, however I have added another source from the Michigan State University. In other topic, I understand the recent removal of the North American Region description from the article, but not the removal of the North American region map. You said it was "redundant" or "overlaping", well, so it Central, Northern and Middle America, all regions of the North American continent. I'm adding the map back. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 22:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see your point, the Crystal Reference Ecyclopedia was modified and I guess they added the West Indies. However, there's a new ref. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How little we forget about North America (Americas) -- these same points were made when that article fork was successfully nominated for deletion. Corticopia 14:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  North America (geopolitical region) 

message: Well, it is been a couple of days since it was proposed to merge Sub-regions of the Americas‎ and this article, therefore I'll proceed to merge them as soon as I can. Supaman89 01:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a merge is a good idea. The articles are about different things; one is on Americas terminology in general, and the other is part of a uniform series of articles (Subregions of Asia, etc.) dealing exclusively with the UN geoscheme.  Spacepotato 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that it would be better to merge the articles (Subregions of Africa, Sub-regions of the Americas, Subregions of Asia, Subregions of Europe, and Subregions of Oceania) dealing with the UN geoscheme into United Nations geoscheme. Spacepotato 06:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: The usage of "America" is up for discussion, see talk:America -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "America"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Americas (terminology). 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 http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515192216/http://www.grec.cat/ to http://www.grec.cat/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520110306/http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/infjur/leg/conshist/pdf/1814.pdf to http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/infjur/leg/conshist/pdf/1814.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Americas (terminology). 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/20080315225339/http://www.diputados.gob.mx/cedia/museo/sala3_mas.htm to http://www.diputados.gob.mx/cedia/museo/sala3_mas.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)