Talk:America (disambiguation)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

This should redirect to the country.

There are currently THREE FULL TALK PAGES (2 archives and this one), and 95% of the comments are of redirecting this to the good old US of A.--Kevin1gamer 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin1gamer (talk • contribs)

Actually, of all the there pages, 78.4% tell us to redirect to the better and older C of A. --190.226.50.130 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of how arrogance leads to ignorance. America is in fact one continent. Education in the US gives the wrong belief that instead of further dividing the continent, North America and South America are two different continents. That is why the are five circles in the olimpic games logo, America, Europe, Asia, Oceania and Australia. The term "american" has to come to describe those who are citizens of the US, and not just in English, in Spanish and German too as far as I'm concerned. The term "America" has come to describe the United States of America, though only in English. And the English version of Wikipedia is supposed to appeal to English speakers. Despite all of this, it would be a product of naivete to direct "America" to the United States of America article. Trrri333 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There are so many grammatical, logical, and factual errors in that statement that I really hope you meant that whole statement as some sort of strange joke. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, I was brought up to say "America" as USA, but I now consider America to be whole continent. 78.150.183.177 (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Most people who speak English, refer to the United States as "America". Citizens of the United States as "Americans". The opinions of people who do not speak English natively should be moot here. As they can call it whatever they like in the Portugese or French or Spanish Article. Point is, those who speak English, in an overwhelming majority refer to the United States of America as "America".

So, at least list United States of America on top. As that is the most common reference to the word America.

This whole page just smells of PC liberalism. Neutrality alert. Lets take away America's name and take the first word out of North America and South America and call them both America. Lets call Brazillians "Americans" even though they do not think as such. Mexicans call themselves Mexicans, not Americans. And Canadians call themselves Canadians.

Come on folks, this is crap. America is the United States of America in English and a small minority of people who happen to write wikipedia articles are attempting to change people's perception of how the word is used.

I can agree for a compromise on putting USA on top. That should be first on the damned list.24.217.92.232 (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Brazilians, Mexicans, Argentinians, Peruvians, and all Latin Americans call their continent as "America" and call themselves "Americans" when they talk about their continental identity, in the same way that people from Italy, Spain, Portugal call themselves "Europeans". The term "South American" is only used when they want to be specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.197.71 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Colombia

Colombia, or the English Columbia, actually refers to the entire "New World," so I can't see why one country should monopolize the name. I hope you see my sarcasm. A lot of non-native English speakers seem to come here with an agenda. But the usage of "America" to refer to the USA seems fairly standard throughout the native English speaking world, not only in the USA. As this is English-language Wikipedia, I think we should stick with the English-language convention. 98.221.132.86 (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

An option for getting some statistics

Here's an option for finding out how the readership is actually using this page:

  1. Clean up the incoming links to redirects America (country) → United States and America (continent) → Americas
  2. Use those redirects in this disambiguation page. They should be used anyway, by WP:MOSDAB
  3. Wait for a long period of time. Several months, or even a year.
  4. Compare the traffic counts (from http://stats.grok.se/) of how many readers viewed this dab and how many used each of those redirects.
    • If the traffic to one of the redirects is both greater than 50% of the dab traffic and much greater than the other one (say, again, by 50% or more), move the dab page to America (disambiguation) and point the base name at the primary topic. (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)
    • If neither is the primary topic, order them by their usage. - JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Capital idea. Anyone bored enough to implement it? -LlywelynII (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Although, on second thought, why not also include the current links? What's the current count of uses that need to be shifted one way or th'other? -LlywelynII (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
America (country) has 1 mainspace link and and America (continent) has 9 mainspace links that should be changed to pipelinks or direct links; probably the other user, talk, and WP space links should be too. As for why not, the idea is to see where people are going from this disambiguation page, so the traffic stats need to be restricted to links that are used only on the dab, as much as possible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
A good exercise for future discussions, but its results certainly won't single-handedly decide whether or where to redirect the page, as you suggest in Step 4. Selection of a primary topic is based on discussion and consensus between editors, so while the outcome will lend feul to the debate, there will still be many other factors to take into account as well, and therefore seems pointless.
I will always support for this to remain a dab page, partly because any dictionary will give you two definitions of "America" or "American", and therefore the term remains ambiguous as far as learned lexicographers and reliable sources are concerned. And also because it's controversial: as archived discussions will show, people have a problem with the name "America" being used either way, and therefore redirecting that title to one or the other will merely add more sparks and prolong the debate indefinitely. It's the same reason why Macedonia remains a dab page, or why China doesn't redirect to People's Republic of China.
There have been numerous past discussions and redirect/move proposals for either side, and the only consensus that has ever been acheived is for this to remain a dab page. Therefore, while I think gathering statistics on the use of this page is great, it definitely won't determine what to do with the page itself. As it says on the WP:DAB page, "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic." Night w (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think it might be possible to build consensus to facilitate the readership's use of the encyclopedia if the traffic stats indicate a primary topic, even among the editors who previously thought that there was no primary topic. It is possible, of course, that some editors will not be swayed, even if the evidence is abundant; it has happened before on other topics. Consider, though, that if either the continent or the country turns out to be the page most often sought by the readership for "America" (i.e., is the primary topic), a hatnote on the corresponding article to the other as well as to the dab page will mean that no reader seeking either the country or the continent will have an additional click to go through, and the majority (i.e., those seeking whichever is the primary topic) will reach the primary topic article faster. That is my goal in seeking to build consensus to recognize a primary topic if one exists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Two additional thoughts: 1) Using the "the dictionary has more than one definition" as a rule would lead to almost every term leading to a dab page. The discussion is generally about whether the first definition is sufficiently more prominent than any other. 2) Assume we had accurate statistics on the uses of all links out of a dab page, they would be substantial input into how best to set up the page for navigation, including what article should be primary (or that there be none) if we want to optimize navigation. What other criteria should we use so that discussions about it can be based on a common understanding of the goals and provide a sane basis for discussion? (John User:Jwy talk) 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm not an avid Wikipedian, so I'm not very brushed up on Wikipedia rules and proceedings, but I find this whole argument completely nonsensical.


  • Fact one: The vast majority of Wikipedians on the English version of Wikipedia are from the United States. This means that the vast majority here in the talk page will want to see a redirect to United States. This is bias.
  • Fact two: There are three ways to distinguish the term "America": the first is geographically, which would represent the entire land-connected continent; the second would be in a political sense, which would mean North and South America combined, just as North and South Korea is; the third would be in the slang sense, which is to use the term "America" to represent the United States, because it contains the word in the official name. The problem with the third definition is that "United States of America" is not "United States... or America". It is of America, which further strengthens the first and second definition.


Now clearly, the "slang" definition has not entirely taken over the Wikipedian definition, because I am redirected to the disambiguation page and not the nation; however, it is still wrong. I suggest two options which should be enough for both sides, but favors the correct version of the term:

  • Move Americas to "America", having it become the first definition, which is, seeing the geographical connection between the two political continents, geographically correct.
  • Have America redirect to Americas, having it become the second definition, which is politically correct.

(NOTE #1: We would also move the current disambiguation article for "America" to "America (disambiguation)" in both cases)

(NOTE #2: There would either be a Distinguish or About template linking to United States at the top of the main article in both cases, beside a Other uses template.)


I'm not sure how to initiate a vote on this, so if anyone else wishes to do so, or comment, go right ahead. Ericleb01 (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at WP:MOSDAB to understand what the disambiguation pages are intended to do. No one is currently arguing that America be redirected to United States. The fact that there are three definitions that most readers might be looking for when they enter "America" would support that we KEEP America redirecting here. Disambiguation pages are primarily to ease navigation and when there are several prominent articles contending for the same term, a Disambiguation page is best for this. While there seem to be some exceptions for highly politically or religiously charged terms, I tend to prefer to avoid making such exceptions myself. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think is funny that North and South America are "The Americas", and North and South Korea are Korea and not "The Koreas". I think we should move Americas to "America" and the current America article to America (disambiguation).

And the top of the new America article with something like:

This article is about the lands of the Western hemisphere. For other uses, see America (disambiguation). --200.121.150.214 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion about what you "think is funny." But English usage is what it is, whether you find it odd or not. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is more a "US English" usage/problem, because they want to reserve the America name for them.--200.121.150.214 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. See this page's archives; this has been brought up before and there is plenty of evidence that this usage is widespread through "British" English-speaking countries. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

America is America

Typing in the word "America" should automatically send you to this page United States of America. What is up with the Americas and all that other stuff? If they type in "Americas" then that one can go the continent, but America is America. I've never heard anyone in English saying "I'm from America" if they are not from the US. Please make the neccessary arrangements so that Wikipedians may find what they're looking for faster and easier. Thank you, (209.7.171.66 15:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Typing in "America" should NOT send you to the United States of America page. America is the whole continent. A person from Manaos, Brazil is as American as one from Atlanta, USA. The fact that there are very many English-speakers who call America only the USA, it does not make it right at all. This problem has to do with the unfortunate lack of education in the USA towards the rest of the world. So, to make it short. America is the entire continent, from Alaska all the way down to Chile and Argentina. Keep in mind that by the time the name was given, it was actually focused on the southern lands, given that the British colonies arrived some time later than the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors. 00:16, 21 October 2008 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoffmannm (talk • contribs)

In 16th century Latin cartography, perhaps. On the other hand, in modern English, OP is right that "America" isn't the whole (two) continent(s). "The Americas" is. You can go with "Columbia" if you're poetically minded, but even that usually intends the USA. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
LlywelynII, this debate has gone on and on. The wikipedia is not for U.S. centric English, it's rather an encyclopedic nature. If 'America' were to redirect to the U.S. then the U.S.A. name would be a contradiction or worse a syntax error. That is... United States of America... that is... United States of the United States... or was it true that the founding fathers were trying to say... "United States of (the) America(n Continent)" which if you consult old writings is the correct meaning. You can even check New Spanish and even 13 colonies texts. All refer to America as a continent. If Americas was correct, why is the Organization of American States, incorrectly named. Would that mean that Nicaragua or Venezuela are part of the U.S. or how come are they "American States" for the OAS. Let's face it: 'Americas' was an invention of the U.S. to appropriate the America name. But this is an encyclopedia, not a medium to push U.S. foreign policy.--189.157.145.159 (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm from Mexico, w[h]ich is in America, the continent.--81.37.148.27 14:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope. It's in North America, the continent, which is part of the Americas. On the other hand, it's south of America. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not the point. The point is whether fluent English speakers would ever say "I'm from America," and ever mean anything other than "I'm from the United States." For a fluent English speaker, "America" without any further qualification, DOES equal the United States.65.77.101.63 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No, that's the point, the word "America" is not only used in that stupid sentence "I am from America", that's why a regular U.S. citizen perhaps thinks... America is a continent, that's why there are 5 circles in the Olimpics game logo morons... Because there are 5 continents, one of them named America. If you want to say that you are from the U.S. say it like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.126.189 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised you even possess the intelligence to operate a computer. There is no continent called "America"; there's North America, there's South America, and if for whatever reason you wish to poetically invoke them both you say "The Americas", much like one might say "Eurasia" when talking about the distribution of Neanderthal archaeological sites or the culture of Georgia or Armenia. I've been all over the world and never have I said "I'm from America" and subsequently been asked, "Where in America? Brazil, Bermuda, Honduras?" America = the United States of America, much like China = the People's Republic of China, Mexico = the United Mexican States, Ireland = the Republic of Ireland. This is a fact that is beyond indisputable, it is, to put it mildly, a sign of profound feeble-mindedness to suggest otherwise. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Another ignorant U.S. citizen... So what are the 5 continents represented in the olympic symbol? I am gonna give you a hint: Europe, Asia, Oceania, Africa and ... . By the way, I am from America (Canada)74.56.89.172 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
...eh, but if America really did mean the continent, you wouldn't need to clarify you meant Canadian. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Please don't be so arrogant and then proudly declare yourself Canadian, because you embarrass other Canadians with your obnoxious elitism. Americans aren't stupid or ignorant simply because they call themselves according to the name of their country. The United States OF AMERICA. What else are they going to call themselves but Americans? You refer to them as "US citizens" but that term is inaccurate, as there are plenty of Americans who are not citizens. Unitedians or Statians would be meaningless. People who are form the United States Of Mexico (its official name) call themselves Mexicans. Secondly, you are not an American, Canadians are North Americans. Call yourself an American to many Canadians and they won't be sure what you mean. People in the continent of South America are South Americans (or Sudamericanos in spanish). North & South America are recognized as and taught in schools to be two separate continents in the English speaking world, as well as China, Japan, and Russia/former USSR. Also, Oceania is not generally a continent, Australia is. (Oceania is a region, not a continent) Outside of the english speaking world, there is not a consistent organization of continents, as the Latin world and some of southern Europe consider N & S America a single continent. The olympic rings do not refer to specific continents, so the 5 rings could just as eaily refer to N America, S America, Africa, Australia, and Eurasia (which is the arrangement taught in Russia, Eastern Europe & Japan). This was probably not the interpretation visualized by the creator of the design, since he was French and the IOC is Swiss, and in those countries the two Americas are typically considered a single continent, while Europe /Asia are separated. But that is only one organization, and less relevant to the English language wikipedia.Walterego (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure elitism is the word you were looking for?? Elitism is what Wormwoodpoppies and others demonstrate when they are unable to accept that things may be different (and not necessarily wrong)in other countries. The Canadian guy is only showing a classic example where America is viewed as one continent. He's one of the few non elitists north americans writing on this page. And you sound silly when you want to make an induction from the fact that Mexicans call themselves Mexicans. Just try to apply your reasoning to the United Arab Emirates. 201.87.109.132 (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Things are different in other languages. Spanish has the perfectly acceptable norteamericano (which, by the by, doesn't mean Canada either.) English doesn't. And yes, it is elitist to pretend their prescriptive definition should prevail over actual and rational usage. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Two Words- "I agree" New England Review Me! 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"America is America" is a statement both sides could make. How would I know if the anonymous user meant the United States or meant North and South America when he or she stated "America is America"? I half suspected someone asking for Americas to be a redirect and that article here, but I see it is the counter position. All the more reason in my mind to keep the status quo. -Acjelen 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"America is America" is a statement both sides could make. But in English, only one of them would be right. In English, "America" in the singular unambiguously refers to the USA. Even though dictionaries offer "the Americas" as an alternative definition of "America," I am fairly widely read in English and I have never seen "America" used that way in English (although see the thread above where I ask for a published example -- but then, see my comments in that thread as well). The English Wikipedia should reflect actual English usage, not what some people think English usage ought to be. At the absolute very least, the "USA" meaning should be first on this dab page. --Tkynerd 00:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
you should read this article WP:BIAS 200.74.80.18 17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this discussion suffers from a lack of reading WP:NAMES -LlywelynII (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You waste your time. This same discussion was made several times. This article will be left unchanged in the end. Oh, and I personally disagree with the America is USA thing. --Shadowy Crafter 00:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is brought up several times, that should show you that there is something wrong with it. If you are a native English speaker, you know what "America" is. And this Wikipedia is written for English speakers so put 1 and 1 together, and please make the neccessary changes. (74.134.127.92 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
Maybe the fact that this is being discussed should show you that something is wrong with your assumption that America is USA. I may agree that most English speakers think in US when they read/hear the word America but, as somebody wrote earlier, America is America, and its north, south, and central areas are (respectively) North America, South America, and Central America. Calin99 14:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Eh... no. Again, North America, South America, and Central America are the Americas' north, south, and center. America's north, south, and central areas are New England, the (American) South, and the Great Plains. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
So Texas is in South America? If America unambiguously meant the USA, as you contend it does, then, yes, Texas is in South America. can we close this talk?74.244.126.207 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The United States of America are only The united states of America, its not America. America is North and South America together. Can you be more selfcentered? Chandlertalk 10:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the way to talk, dude. Xhandler --190.40.72.137 01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm English & I'm not slow to complain about the American bias of Wikipedia.
Wait! Did you see what I did there? I meant US, didn't I? But because I'm speaking English I didn't need to explain.
So what exactly is the "Organization of American States" then? Not so unambiguous...
An article I read today: [1] It interested me because it shows just how natural it is for (native) English speakers to use America meaning US. Eg US is used 4 times & America 23 times.
This says to me that this debate is political & not about NPOV.
Dyaimz 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Plus, inappropriate carry-overs from Spanish and Romance usage. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I asked about this matter to 3 of my university teachers: My political science teacher, my history teacher and my philosophy teacher. They ALL agree that calling "America" to the USA is wrong. And I agree with them. America is America. And America is the ENTIRE western hemisphere.--Shadowy Crafter 16:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Shadow, if you're still in school, try going back to them and having a conversation about American foreign policy or American exceptionalism. See if they hesitate at all before excoriating them. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It really seems that there are certain people in the Wikipedia community who don't have a clear understanding of English. The Americas refers to the continent, but in singular, the word America is shorthand for the US. Please let's not make this an issue of where you live, or what you would like the page to be. On a pure factual basis, in the English language, America only refers to the US. This is universally accepted by all major media, including CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BBC, Deutsche Welle, TV5, TV Africa etc. Many of these networks are based in different countries, but they all have programs in English and they all use America interchangably with the United States. Please consider it without a bias. Thank you, (209.7.171.66 21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
I think that when people say "Columbus discovered America", they do not mean "Columbus discovered USA", they really mean whole continent. Or "The American continent", it does not mean to USA. I really wonder why US people call USA to America and how this began. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.148.100.50 (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not quite the case that "America" in English refers only to the English-speaking areas south of Canada. After all, Columbus "discovered America", didn't he? However, I agree with your basic point, since in almost any other context I can think of, "America" is not ambiguous. I don't really understand why "The United States of America, a country in the Americas" is listed second on this dab page, since it is clearly the dominant usage. However, it doesn't seem terribly important, either.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

America was the name given to the New continent discovered by Columbus, after some years the name was taken by the USA because they couldn't take a name of their own. I think it is good that both options are open at wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.136.118 (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, because Unitedstatesian is cacophonic in English, but close. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Since all of central and south america is called "Latin-American," then wouldnt Angloamerican analogously make sense to refer to the part of America that was colonized by the british?74.244.126.207 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it is obvious that almost everyone whining about "America" somehow, against all logic and rational reasoning, referring to the entire Western Hemisphere is not a native speaker of English and therefore should stick to their own language's wikipedia and refrain from attempting to force their bizarre point of view on the English version. But on to my main point, to those arguing that North and South America are actually one single continent called "America", I ask you to fire up google image and actually look at a map of the world for the first time in your life: now tell me, how in the fucking hell can you argue that Europe and Asia are two continents, whereas North and South America are one? Nature had them literally dangling from each other by a thread, and the Panama Canal snipped it. Europe and Asia are, unarguably, a single landmass, and Asia and Africa's canal border is much, much longer than the Isthmus of Panama. Under your logic the planet Earth hosts four continents: America, Australia, Antarctica, and Eurasiafrica. I, personally, am reasonably certain that there are seven. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1st person to write here "User:209.7.171.66" was the one to write America is America referring to the USA as the IP leads to Illinois,USA. This person says that America is the U.S.A. If you explain this reasoning to a 5 year old and you ask him where is Texas, he will say in the South. At this point you want to ask "South where?". The 5 year old boy will respond South America and not South US or South USA, as he is supposed to. Now I want to state some things starting by the fact that in all legal and federal matters in the US, you are a "US Citizen", the nationality in my passport says "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". Since its discovery, the landmasses west of the old world, from the modern world Canada till the South of Chile has been called America and as a matter of fact, it is still called America in more than 100 languages and tongues around the world. But only in English and Afrikaans to name a few in a group of six it is called "The Americas". If you go by popular usage in the world then America is a group of continents consisting in North and South America. You cannot get a simple demonym from "The United States of America" well, of course you can say "American" but there's one thing, American is everyone that lives in America(North or South America). So having the name "American" exclusively for the USA, leaves US Citizens without a true identity, because apart from the more than 308m Americans that live in the USA, there are more than 600m Americans in the rest of the American super continent and it’s fact that they are also Americans. So if the country is called United States of AMERICA (not United States of Americas) and there's a North & South America (without a plural s) and in more than 100 languages in Wikipedia America redirects directly to the group of continents versus 6 that call it "The Americas". It is not proper for the English Wikipedia to use “The Americas” or “America” to refer to the USA. I don’t understand why some users say that there's no such thing or placed called simply America, when it's even in the name of the USA. Douken (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly why should the meaning of the word in Spanish, Chinese, or any other language have any bearing on what the word means in ENGLISH? 97.82.152.134 (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


Semantics

From what I've seen semantically across the South American Wikipedia pages, a nation's name is designated as the page title, not its system of governmental conglomeration:

Bolivia, officially The Plurinational State of Bolivia (Spanish: Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia

Argentina, officially the Argentine Republic[5] (Spanish: República Argentina,

Brazil (Portuguese: Brasil), officially the Federative Republic of Brazil (Portuguese: República Federativa do Brasil)

Chile, officially the Republic of Chile (Spanish: RepChile.ogg República de Chile)

Colombia (IPA: /kəˈlʌmbɪə/), officially the Republic of Colombia (Spanish: República de Colombia.ogg República de Colombia

Ecuador (IPA: /ˈɛkwədɔr/), officially the Republic of Ecuador (Spanish: República del Ecuador

Guyana (pronounced /ɡaɪˈænə/ or /ɡiːˈɑːnə/), officially the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and previously known as British Guiana

Paraguay, officially the Republic of Paraguay (Spanish: República del Paraguay

Peru (Spanish: Perú, Quechua: Piruw, Aymara: Piruw), officially the Republic of Peru

Suriname[2] (Dutch: Suriname; Sranan Tongo: Sranan), officially the Republic of Suriname, is a country in northern South America.

Uruguay, (official full name in Spanish: República Oriental del Uruguay; Spanish pronunciation: [reˈpuβlika oɾjenˈtal ðel uɾuˈɣwai], Eastern Republic of Uruguay

Venezuela (pronounced /ˌvɛnɨˈzweɪlə/ or /ˌvɛnɨˈzwɛlə/; Spanish pronunciation: [beneˈswela]), officially the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Spanish: República Bolivariana de Venezuela), is a country on the northern coast of South America.

All of these nations are called by their name. Why is America called by the way it is formed? - The United States? Of where?? These nations are all republics, but we still refer to them by their name. Whether anyone likes the fact that some old white guy chose the continent's name (also the brain-child of some white guy) as the nation's seems irrelevant. To be perfectly logical about this, it is only right that America refer to just that, the nation, a union of states, together named America.

That, or I propose we refer to all of the South American Countries as The Republic. - R0bert (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Then how would you call the United Arab Emirates? The USA is a republic too, just like Peru. For some reasons, the official name is "United States of America" and not "The republic of the United States of America", but it could have been. The name isn't America just like UAE isn't "Arabia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.167.253 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh, but only because there is confusion with Saudi Arabia and both are recent countries. With America, there is no confusion, except among native Spanish speakers who think yanqui or norteamericano should work in English as well. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
What people from the United Arab Emirates call themselves is none of my business (or yours for that matter).R0bert (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for putting some logic in the head of these self-centered ingnorants. By his logic, we should start calling Central African Republic just Africa. I am sure other Africans wouldn't like it. Well, that's the way most people feel here in Canada. We are also form America, the continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.89.172 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you are from the nation Canada, and the continent North America. I would assume people from the Central African Repbulic would prefer the term "Central African," but then again, I don't want to speak for them, like you seem to. You and 132.203.167.253 are both being culturally imperialistic by insisting on controlling the pronouns of other nations. R0bert (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

America the Continent

America was considered one continent. Before the Panama Canal the Americas, North America and South America, were actually just "America" - If you look at the naming of the Country - you'll see an alternative was calling it the "United States of Columbia" - Which also refers to the continent discovered by Columbus or Vespucci.--Keerllston 18:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

United States school children are taught that Columbus discovered their country: "America", but actually, Columbus never discovered or set foot in what is now the United States. Columbus discovered America, but the America which signifies the entire Western Hemisphere, and which consists of all lands from Canada to Chile/Argentina. In all of Latin America, the term America refers to the entire Western Hemisphere and never to the United States. On the other hand, in many Latin countries the term "American", may refer, depending on the context, to belonging to or relating to, either, the entire Western Hemisphere or to the United States. In the name of The Organization of American States, for example, the term American alludes to all the countries of the Western Hemisphere. In Europe, Just as no one refers to "the Europes", because of there is a Western Europe and an Eastern Europe, in Latin America, America is viewed as one geographical mass, even though it may be further broken down into North, Central, South, Caribbean etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.34.176 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for an article about the continent, I want to look up how many inhabitants the continent has. Where can I find this article about the continent? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Americas. It's the first entry listed on the disambiguation page, so I'm having a hard time understanding why you couldn't find it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Email opinion : in Costa Rica, America doesn't mean US

Here's an email from someone who believes strongly that "America" should not be construed as [globally] referring to the US. I've encouraged him to respond here directly. 

> Hi Wiki...
> 
> While looking for America, i encounter this:
> 
> "Use of the term America may be ambiguous, as it can
> refer to either this entire landmass or just the
> United States of America." -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas
> 
> I do not agree with that since, i live in Costa Rica -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_rica - Wich is a
> Country in central America. and here in my country and
> most of the rest of America Excluding the U.S.A and
> CANADA, we call america as a CONTINENT not a country.
> 
> Please can you change a part of that paragraph, since
> not all ppl consider America as a Country...
> 
> indeed its important to us to remeber and know AMERICA
> just as a continent, giving the term the flexibility
> to also refer to U.S.A, is to desacredit the others
> nations living in the continent.
> 
> so please i will fell happier if you could change that
> part of the article to:
> 
> "Use of the term America may be ambiguous, as it can
> refer to either this entire landmass"
> 
> it will give to all of us, residents of AMERICA more
> neutrality :D
> 
> THX
-- +sj + 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. That would be Spanish usage. Cf. WP:Names or es:America. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I can say that I've always considered it incorrect to refer to the U.S. as simply "America". However, it is correct to refer to its citizens as "Americans". It's kinda a double standard. I wouldn't say that the majority of the English speaking world would refer to the U.S. as simply "America", either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.36.25 (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

disambiguating phrases at the top.

The purpose of the phrases attached to the entries on disambiguation pages (see WP:MOSDAB) is to assist readers determine which of the entries contain the information they are looking for. The two entries as they currently are:

It would be clear to most readers that the second is where to go to read about the country consisting of 50 states between Canada and Mexico. It is more unclear what the first one is. Since it is unclear, the reader will have to either scan through the entire page to figure out by process of elimination or click through - both unnecessary if we simply put in several words here to distinguish it from the other entries.

The downside of putting more words in here? Too many words would make the page as a whole more difficult to navigate through as you try to find other things, but I believe the few words I am about to restore from my previous edit don't do that. I don't quite understand the criteria given against it. Both entries are being treated equally: provide enough information to let the reader know enough to see if the page is the one they are looking for. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

From a descriptive standpoint, one is no less evident than the other. Why not further promote clarity by exhibiting balance and parallelism with short descriptions? While many may infer or already know the topic of the second entry, it isn't sufficient to simply leave it at that -- i.e. it doesn't indicate what it inarguably is: a country (mostly) in the Americas (or America). I'd like to point out that the entries were minimal before being changed in late Nov. without any apparent consensus on this talk page. Thus, KISS both or neither. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that they are both equally evident. What else could the article "United States of America" be except the country? A vast majority of English speakers (and many non-) will already know its a country. Those that don't can figure it out from the name. One can't say either about "The Americas." (John User:Jwy talk) 05:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this fails to take into account the multiple meanings of the word 'state' (e.g., U.S. state, sovereign state, federated state). And, I wonder if there is nationalism at work here: even Americas points out the real/imagined offense that others in the Americas take towards US usurpation of 'America', despite it clearly being part of the country's long-form name. So, why potentially further that? There's nothing to be served by being piecemeal: all or nothing. Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You're arguing that people don't know the name of the second-biggest landmass on Earth when they see it? Why is the second more obvious than the first? You're assuming, from your own perspective, that most people know what the second is without further indication. And while they both seem pretty basic knowledge to me, I think that assumption has also been applied to how it is now with both entries. I think adding short indicative discriptions on both would satisfy any user who mightn't have the prior knowledge to instinctively know which is the "America" that they're searching for. If the attempt here is to aid navigation through indication, then what's the problem with adding a note on both entries? Night w (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jwy; the "United States of America" is obvious and self-explanatory to anyone literate in English. "The Americas" is probably clear to most, but might not be to everyone. However, this is probably the most trivial edit war I've seen in a while. In an effort to reach consensus, I could live with the "no description on either one" approach and see if anyone complains.
I do have to take exception to the last edit summary claiming that the no-description approach is the "last stable version"; the description of the Americas was unchanged from November 2009 to February 2010, and was implicitly accepted by several intervening editors. It would seem to me that those who want to change away from this version should at least be willing to explain themselves and not hide behind a "past" consensus. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the simpler entries dates back at least a year before Nov. 2009.[2] I recall that there was at least discussion predicating that decision. Not apparently (i.e., explicitly) for the change in the fall. So, who's hiding? Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jwy that it would be better to offer a brief description of "the Americas." I do not find the statement "America usually means either: The Americas, or..." to be the clearest possible phrasing, and I've seen no convincing argument here against improving it. (A brief description of the US, as a nation in North America, would also be fine as far as I'm concerned. Honestly, this opposition to one or two brief bits of text seems wholly irrational to me.) Propaniac (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
What I find hard to understand is the view that we have to describe both of them, or neither; "all or nothing" as one editor put it above. Why? Are we afraid of hurting someone's feelings? If two things are not the same, why treat them as if they were? Here, the question is, are both of these entries sufficiently clear and self-explanatory to the vast majority of English speakers to stand alone without further explanation? It is certainly possible for the answer to be "yes" in one case and "no" in the other. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Most people entering "America" looking for the country will most likely recognize "United States of America" as where they want to go. Someone entering "America" with an interest in a continent would have more trouble finding their article. Not the least because we have America (terminology). While I don't think it needs it, what would you suggest be the disambiguating phrase for The USA if we were to have "the two continents of the Western hemisphere" for the other? "the country?" (John User:Jwy talk) 06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
...federal republic in North America.
What I find hard to understand is why there's an objection to attchments on both...if the point is to aid navigation by indication...? Are we afraid of hurting someone's feelings? Night w (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Night W. Two comments. First, if the entries are to be expanded (though I prefer the long-standing brevity), the one for Americas need not necessarily note the continents of the WH. The Americas include the lands and regions of the hemisphere: so, not only North and South America, but Central America, Latin America, Anglo-America, the U.S. of A., and generally also the Caribbean. Second, note that Hawaii is not in North America proper, but a Polynesian/Oceanian archipelago -- hence, text may be needed that acknowledges this, like a 'federal republic situated mostly in North America'. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Small objection to that particular wording - the relevance of the USA to this page is NOT because it is "situated mostly in North America". If that's why the USA is listed, then why not list Canada and Mexico as well? The USA is relevant to this page because "America" is a widely accepted shortening of the nation's name. A brief mention of that would suffice. Alexwebb2 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. Of course the entry belongs because of the synonymity and usage, but the proposed wording was simply an attempt to be more accurate regarding the country's locale (not totally in North America). But, I can live with that -- I'm more adamant about having a description for both or none, not just one. Bosonic dressing (talk)
But why? This has nothing to do with favoritism or anything like that, it simply has to do with the clarity of the titles of the articles. It seems to me there is a consensus here that the phrase "the United States of America" is more easily and widely understood to refer to the country, than the phrase "the Americas" is understood to refer to the "lands and regions" of the western hemisphere. If they're equally clear to you, then good for you, but the fact that multiple other people are saying the latter is not clear to them seems like fairly irrefutable evidence that it's not clear to everyone and can thus be improved. Propaniac (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Bosonic, your intransigence is truly puzzling. Why do you insist that both or neither of the bullet points include further explanation? Is this some aesthetic consideration? Concern that elaborating on only one would seem to privilege that meaning? Or is there something else I am not getting? It is going to be difficult to reach consensus when you are not explaining yourself and merely asserting your adamancy on the point.--CAVincent (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not? No renewed consensus seems to have emerged. I am no more intransigent than those who maintain simplicity for one entry, yet complexity for another: one could point out that it validates the very concern cited above regarding appropriation of the term. Reasoning to date has been unconvincing. The 'all or none' approach is simply/mainly out of a desire for consistency. If you cannot or choose not to understand that, and I am in turn perplexed by that, then you compelling for change of the prior long-standing state will be very hard indeed. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"Consistency" has no value in itself. You need to establish why consistency in this case is a benefit to anyone. Others have said that adding more description to "the Americas" will increase clarity. Clarity is a benefit to users who visit this page looking for a particular link. Clarity is more valuable than consistency for consistency's sake. If you do not see why, I suspect you will continue to be perplexed. Propaniac (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm: expanding on both entries promotes clarity and is more advantageous for users. I and others have already established that -- you and cohorts must compel otherwise. So, who is perplexed? Enough of this thread. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The long held and broad consensus at WP:MOSDAB suggests that clarity for an entire disambiguation page is improved by the shortest (with some exceptions) disambiguating phrase that explains how that entry is different from the others so the reader can choose the one they are looking for. I agree with Propaniac that USA is sufficiently differentiated from the other entries without further description. I MIGHT accept something as simple as ", the country," but I can't think of what else someone would honestly think that article is about, whereas "The Americas" among a bunch of different uses of the term America is at least more ambiguous that USA and I would suggest we put, at least, ", the continents" on that one to make it clear. "The Americas, the continents" and "the United States of America" - to me - are equally (i.e. "consistently") clear in the context I describe. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the specific guideline on MOSDAB indicates:
  • The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.
It does not say it should be absent, regardless of how well known a topic is perceived to be. As well, 'United States of America' may not be that minimum, in case there is confusion regarding the singular America or a mistaken belief of some sort of pan-American entity (q.v. OAS). Conversely, what else can 'Americas' be interpreted as being? (Curiously, there are more online instances of 'Americas' (135M) than 'United States of America' (40.5M), so which may be more popular or unambiguous?) Nothing argued to date has convinced me to support a piecemeal approach. In sum, a few words for each promotes clarity and doesn't smack of partiality, or none at all. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The statistic that "there are more online instances of 'Americas' (135M) than 'United States of America' (40.5M)" is interesting, if true, but where did you get this data? If it was from a Google search, I note that the Google results for "Americas" include pages that contain the term "America's", which seems to invalidate the comparison. Google search for "The Americas" only returns about 13M hits. Of course, that doesn't prove anything one way or the other about how well readers understand either term. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, you've finally said something that I agree with completely: "Enough of this thread." No one, including me, has offered anything other than a subjective opinion as to what description would be desirable or necessary for either term, and I'm not sure that there is anything other than a difference in taste here. Certainly no one has proposed anything that would be factually inaccurate, so I can live with whatever the result is. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The Google results were simply searches for 'Americas' or 'United States of America', without discriminating otherwise. Even searching for "Americas" explicitly (without apostrophe) one obtains 55.7M results. Anyhow, my point is that both are relatively common, and either entry/term can be interpreted very minimally or not.
And, so, yes, we've all provided subjective opinions about this and that. Encyclopedias, by their nature, are supposed to be more objective -- this can be served through balanced treatment of topic matter ... and I believe part of that includes parallel entries. :) Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Bosonic's comments at this indent level above: "minimal" may include none, never-the-less there already IS disambiguating information on the USA item. An argument could be made that the entry could be simply United States - I'm not making it as I think it makes it much clearer without cluttering up the page unnecessarily. Google statistics just say how popular the words are, not how their meanings might be confused. This page itself is a better indicator of that kind of confusion. I see only one United States article and many singular versions of America that might (admittedly some with great difficulty) take a plural.
I'm disappointed that neither of of us can seem to find at least an "oh, I see what you are saying but.." type of agreement. Would you settle for the same number of non-article words for each entry? Would that be "consistency" or "parallelism"? I don't understand how the "consistency" criteria works and what quality you are trying to make consistent. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The counts were provided for informational value, in absence of anything else solid.
Hmmm: can you explain how 'Americas' (and not 'America') can be interpreted to mean anything other than what it is? I have not seen clear examples of that. You may retort the same about what other meanings the 'United States' may have, but at least there are other countries with somewhat similar names that may cause confusion (e.g., United Mexican States). Anyhow, it's debatable whether 'United States of America' is sufficiently disambiguated, the entry for which assumes an implicit understanding of what that is, without description and ignorant of how those words can be parsed (e.g., 'states'). Yet, some maintain that 'Americas' is somehow ambiguous, without elaborating.
Consistency and parallelism are not difficult concepts to understand: entries similarly structured and with comparable content -- that is, entries #3 and #4 in the poll below below. That isn't necessarily fulfilled with a straight word count, but can be:
As I am not seeing an acceptance of the need for balance, and I am unsure why, you will find agreement on little else. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to what the big deal is. You want to add a description to the second...great. So why can't we also add a description to the first? The only reasoning I'm seeing so far is a concern for "cluttering up the page unnecessarily". Is that honestly what all the reluctance is about? You're assuming from your own perspective (most of you are residents of the U.S.) that everybody already knows what "the United States of America" is. I'd assume, from my own perspective (having taken 1st Grade geography), that everybody would know what "the Americas" is. But there's simply no way one can credibly assume these things. If the purpose here is to aid the navigator through further indication, then I don't understand the arguments that have been presented so far, or the reluctance to do exactly that with all entries. Night w (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it the norm to attach a short description to the link, no matter how obvious a subject might be...in the very instance that somebody (anybody) might not have the prior knowledge to know which to click. Check the main entries in the following:
What's different about this case? Night w (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not a "big deal," but it is "big" enough that I am reluctant to withdraw simply from being exhausted from the discussions - especially when I believe my arguments are consistent with consensus, both with WP:MOSDAB and a budding consensus here. "Why the big deal" could also apply to an insistence on "either-or-neither."

I am not claiming that people will not understand that "The Americas" may mean the continents, just that it reasonably applies to the plural of other items which are on this page. I also assume that most users of the English Wikipedia will know that United States of America is a country - or at least will know that it is (or is not) the article they were looking for when they entered "America." Again, the goal of the disambiguating phrases is not to completely explain the article referenced, but to enable the reader to distinguish the articles from each other. Longer bits of unnecessary text make it hard to scan the page to do this.

The other pages you mention either 1) have articles that require careful description to distinguish them from one another or 2) have unnecessary text. The "right amount" depends on the term involved and the articles that might possibly be the desired target of readers entering the term. Each term has its own requirements. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:MOSDAB that supports making assumptions about the knowledge level of readers, nor reducing descriptions to nothing on that basis. In fact, the first example on the page is school, which is afforded a short (unnecessary?) description about what a school is. Every other dab page I've listed above does the same—with descriptions that are altogether simple, minimal and directive. Attached text doesn't become "unneccessary" just because you say it is. You're speaking purely from your own perspective, and assuming that no reader will need any help. Adding nothing indicative to a name is not supported in WP:MOSDAB and is not effective when attempting to direct readers. Night w (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
As editors, we make assumptions about the readers all the time and must to be effective communicators - and there are several examples on WP:MOSDAB where the entry is simply the article title. The guideline suggests "the description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." Minimum includes none. Check the Spoon/Tablespoon example for instance. And even on this dab page there are quite a few. And besides, the USA entry ALREADY has disambiguation of the key term. You come to this page by entering America. United States of America is the particular America you might be looking for.
The school disambiguation phrase IS necessary. Since there is a disambiguation page at school, this implies there is ambiguity about the term: it can be a collection of fish, a discipline or a song. There is no disambiguation page for United States or United States of America. Apparently because it is not ambiguous. I am not just saying so.
Applying this process to Americas, you might consider it unambiguous as it does not have a dab page. Two things: 1) it is so close to all the other items on this page (just a plural away) and 2) there actually IS a second Americas page Americas (terminology) (there should probably be a hatnote on the Americas page). So the term IS ambiguous: especially in the context of this page, Americas is difficult to distinguish from the other items. Having an additional word or two will help the user more quickly discern what distinguishes this entry (beyond a single letter).
My main goal at coming here in the first place was that I found Americas difficult to grasp like some of the other editors and tried to fix it. I believe most other editors will have the same difficulty here. I find it very hard to believe that United States of America is not sufficiently disambiguated already to require more. But, while I'd like to avoid long near paragraphs like those you linked to above as they are completely unnecessary here, MAYBE:

The second seems absurd to me. I suppose the first might to you. Not to me in the context of a page with a bunch of other "America" references. (John User:Jwy talk) 07:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly: there certainly is a dab page for "United States"—and rightly so, as it's incredibly ambiguous. On the other hand, "the Americas" only ever refers to one thing (the "terminology" page you linked covers the various definitions of American regions and continent/s).
But that's not the point—I haven't been arguing that "the Americas" is unambiguous, but rather that both terms are equally likely to cause confusion in a user without the prior conviction in what he's looking for.
If you're looking to minimise superflous text, perhaps the name itself needs shortening to its common short-form—given that the page is at "America" anyway, it hardly seems necessary. The dab page Britain does the same: instead of
it's simply:
Night w (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur: I also believe I suggested that approach in my post of 22:50, 27 February 2010, i.e.:
or similar. The arguments for expanding on one but not another continue to be thoroughly unconvincing, and arguably smack of the very appropriation of the term 'America' by its residents cited above (and in 'Americas').
Besides, someone above noted the 'spoon' example as one of mininalism: that dab page actually devotes a sentence to an initial description of what it is. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
But "spoon" maps to "America" in our case and Tablespoon to Americas and USA. Tablespoon has no phrase. And United States of America has no dab page, which implies it is not ambiguous. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This analogy is hardly informative or demonstrative. 'United States' (where the article about the country is) does have a dab page, while 'Americas' does not have such a page. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
What they are looking at - what we have to disambiguate - is United States of America. While its not definitive, the lack of a dab page for that full term implies a lack of ambiguity.
There seems to be some consensus that the Americas is ambiguous - especially in context with the other America terms on this page. My stubbornness here has been to make sure we are making the choice for the right reason. When I see "just make them consistent" without explaining in what way they need to be consistent, it bugs the crap out of me. The reason I added the phrase to Americas was because I thought it ambiguous in context. If you agree that it is ambiguous in context, you should want a disambiguating phrase on it, independently of whether there is anything on USA.
I think we both believe that United States by itself is a bit ambiguous. I think United States of America is unambiguous and a clear indication of its content - and therefore could stand on its own. I still have a hard time believing you think otherwise. Yes, I'm American (I mean U.S. Citizen), but I don't think my opinion is the result of jingoism or a fat head about it. But, okay. If you think "The United States of America" is ambiguous and/or unclear, let's go with either (my first preference beyond just USofA) "The United States of America, the country" or your "United States, a country in the Americas." (John User:Jwy talk) 23:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
No: what there is a need to disambiguate is the article of note, properly titled: United States; compare with the 'Britain' example, etc. above. Using merely the country's long-form name to disambiguate is insufficient: as already explained, noting just 'United States of America' assumes an understanding of what that is already, without accommodating for the possibility that it (e.g., its constituent terms) can be read another way or may actually not be known by someone. In effect, just listing the long-form name is tantamount to using a self-referential, circular definition. As also pointed out above, even articles concerning far more basic concepts, like 'school', expand somewhat. In addition, where is the consensus that 'Americas' is ambiguous? I don't see a modicum of it above, and you certainly haven't demonstrated the case: for instance, there are no other instances of 'Americas' on the dab page -- so, what else can it be confused with? I similarly have a hard time believing you believe that to be the case. Lastly, I won't iterate again reasons for consistency and parallelism: one shouldn't need to. But clarity and equitability of content also are. Nonetheless, I am glad to at least see some conciliation on the point. ('American' is a different story entirely.) Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I feel you haven't read me carefully enough or I haven't written carefully enough - and my reservoir of energy to do better myself is ebbing. One favor I ask. Could point some place where you actually explained what concept or thing you were making consistent and parallel? I would happily return the favor by expounding one of my arguments further or keeping quiet. Whichever you prefer. You believe US of A is not sufficiently described for the reader to know that is what they are looking for. I get it. I disagree but can understand your position and concede on that point.
I mentioned 'school' IS ambiguous (there are 3-4 pages about some version of "school") so the description is necessary. And I apologize if I wrongly assumed we had some consensus that Americas was ambiguous. I assumed the overwhelming preference to add to the entry implied that. And just visually picking out that it is Americas on a long page of America entries slows the navigation. Perhaps some of the mis-understanding is that I believe that these two entries are just like any other dab entry on the page and you are thinking they are something like primary topics? Maybe?
I agree with you on clarity. I'm not sure what you mean by equitability of content.
And if we are okay - if not for the same reasons - on the current page, perhaps this discussion should be moved elsewhere as it is more a philosophic/policy discussion than of practical import on this page. Maybe we can phrase our philosophical disagreement in a clear way that others can comment. What do you think our core disagreement is?
And I have to apologize for the American comment. Although it is what I would naturally say, it was probably not a useful way to put it here. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
As for consensus, please observe that 5 editors prefer adding something to the 'Americas' blurb, while 4 prefer adding to both -- that is not consensus, and not even overwhelming. More in a bit. Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
As for prior discussion of consistency and parallelism, refer to my post of 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC):
  • Consistency and parallelism are not difficult concepts to understand: entries similarly structured and with comparable content -- that is, entries #3 and #4 in the poll below below. That isn't necessarily fulfilled with a straight word count, but can be:
  • The Americas, the lands of the Western Hemisphere
  • The United States, a country in the Americas
  • As I am not seeing an acceptance of the need for balance, and I am unsure why, you will find agreement on little else.
I noted 'equitability' (perhaps I should've said equity or neutrality of content), but that was intended to convey that not rendering entries similarly could be perceived as not conforming to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. On its face, with options #1 and #2, the two topics are not being treated in the same way, for purely subjective reasons. I do believe that the two main entries are primary topics, as they are atop the dab page and the intro lays that out ("America usually refers to either:"). More on the philosophical disagreement in a bit. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for going back and returning that to my attention. I had triggered on the last line and not read above it carefully. "Similar structure and comparable content" are means to something else, I think. I focus on optimizing these pages for navigation and in some cases similar structure and content can help with navigation, sometimes not. Its not a contest for respect or "proper treatment" for the individual topics, its the navigation. On some pages (I've given up trying to do anything on the India disambiguation page, for example), the topics are sufficiently controversial for a variety of reasons and consensus could only be arrived by reducing some of the navigational efficiency (or bending the guidelines INTENDED for that) in favor of this sort of balance. I naively considered these terms not in that category. I am proved wrong. As I don't particularly care that these are (non-navigationally) treated equally and I still believe - for navigational purposes - the USA entry does not require further disambiguation, my preference is still option 1. But if it falls into this other category, for me it goes from becoming "not such a big deal" to "let's keep the phrases short" if there are any at all. Am I making sense? (John User:Jwy talk) 17:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So which of the attachment phrases would you prefer? Night w (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My preference:

I'd be fine with:

I wouldn't object to similar longer phrases if they don't get too long. I'm not sure what other editors would say. We would need to make it clear that the edit is "contentious" and is a compromise of navigational efficiency to strong opinions based on the content. My primary concerns are 1) Americas gets its (what I still believe is) required disambiguating phrase and 2) we keep the page navigational efficient. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The first is unacceptable, for aforementioned reasons -- why persist in suggesting it? The second is more passable, but other variants I've suggested above are preferred. Others are possible. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we try out the version that Bosonic and I proposed earlier, and gauge the reception over time. It is shorter than the initial one-sided approach. Night w (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I was asked my preference, not what I thought would be accepted. The first is still my preference for the reasons I've stated. The remainder of my last comment is less preferred, but okay. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha.
Also note that the poll below currently reveals parity between the first options for either a short description for just the 'Americas' entry (#1) or for both of them (#3). Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So is it ok to put these phrases in, or are we still debating? The only number to appear in everybody's preferences in the poll below is #3. Night w (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I plan to update soon with either "my preference" above or my "I'd be fine with" option above, depending on how cantankerous I'm feeling at the time. If I take the cantankerous option, my reasoning and tolerances are the same and further (limited) editing that retains some comment on the Americas would not be a problem for me. I'm a little worried about others who have been scared off by this discussion popping in and reverting such a change - so I'm not sure I'm the one you need to hear from. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Rest assured that if you update with your preference, even though it is not our preference (per the poll, e.g.), I will correct it to what we may all be more fine with. Mind you, I've no intention of making any changes until others are made, since the status quo is something which I am also fine with. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

I hope nobody minds if I start a simple straw poll in an attempt to establish consensus. Here are the four possible options, as I see them:

  1. Add a brief description to the top link ("The Americas") only
  2. Add a brief description to the bottom link ("The United States of America") only
  3. Add brief descriptions to both links
  4. Do not add descriptions to either link

If you have a preference, I request that you express it below, rating your preferred options in the order you would support them, from most to least.

Preferences

America/s

Can someone literate me? Since when in history has the phrase "The Americas" has been used? Since I'm little I have been teached the group of continents in the western Hemisphere that being North & South America are called America. That also seems to be true in some other 100+ different languages, as a matter of fact, only recently I have seen the phrase "The Americas". For me, that phrase is not in my dictionary as I don't know anything by the name "The Americas". Ignoring teachings one can, by logic reasoning, find that the name for the group of continents is in fact America. The United States of.... something called America. North America, the Northern Part of something called America. South America, the southern part of something called America. When was "The Americas" invented, is something I don't know. Because of this 5 year old reasoning I conclude that the words a top of the article, that it should be disambiguation anyways, should say America & The United States of America in that way, in that order. Although I believe it should redirect to America the group of continents and a top should say "For the United States of America click here". Why? It may be popular that it should direct to the US, but, is incorrect. Many Universities despise the use of Wikipedia because people can put whatever they think is correct as this article has shown us.Douken (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Beyond that, it's very literally impossible for English to be "incorrect" in the manner you're suggesting. Unlike many languages, English is not set or regulated by any authority. English language dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. That an English speaker saying "America" in any context, or without context, will be understood to mean "The United States" not "The Americas" means that the correct usage of "America" is to mean "The United States". WilyD 19:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see a big problem either way of the argument. The way we have it now, those who ask for the word America have the choice of going to the American Continent (the so-called Americas) or to the United States of America (USA). The problem would be if page America uniquely denoted to American Continent excluding USA (as some want) or uniquely denoted the USA and not the American Continent (as some others want). As long as it leads to both at the choice of the one who asked for the word "America", there is no problem. werldwayd (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

America in the English language

In the English language, in its many varieties, America is used predominantly to refer to the USA. It is only occasionally used to refer to its other historic, foreign language or geographic uses. I'm not putting a value judgment here on any one country in North or South America (the continents) owning the name. This disambiguation page is wrong when it says as the 1st point of order that America usually refers to 'the Americas'. I have attempted to correct this and it has been reverted by a number of people. Why cannot the USA be listed as the 1st and most common use of this word? This is what happens when you use this word in the English language.

In American (word) The following sentence is used:

In modern English, "American" generally refers to the United States, and in the U.S. itself this usage is almost universal.

. This is confirmed again in Americas where a similar sentence is used:

America may be ambiguous in English, as it is more commonly used to refer to the United States of America.

. What is wrong with making this page's lead disambiguation say at least:

America usually refers to:

America may also refer to:

Ozdaren (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion of this and related issues. Check even the most recent archives here. I believe you will run into strong resistance to your change.
I don't feel too strongly about it. But, to me, "America" is more than just the USA - but my edit was to restore the "may also refer to" line that was lost in the flurry. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame that Wikipedia in this instance does not reflect the current and most common use of this word in the English language. I thought Wikipedia was here to reflect the real world not create its own world. PS Thanks for taking the time to leave a note. Ozdaren (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd encourage you to read over past discussions archived on this talk page. Placing the continent under the secondary category, thus leaving only one entry under the first, would suggest a primary topic for this word, which is not the case, as usage is clearly divided to a considerable degree. Night w (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Opinion is clearly divided to a considerable degree. Usage may or may not be. See #An option for getting some statistics above for my suggestion on how to measure usage. There may indeed be a primary topic for this word. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The most common use for the word America in the English language is to refer to the United State of America. A very much less common use is to refer to the continents. The continents are refered to as North and South America, occasionally in a combined way as 'the Americas'. It is not the only use of America and indeed in foreign languages it is perhaps not used primarily in that way at all. The only divided usage seems to be on Wikipedia. It is quite clear that in countries where English is the 1st language America primarily refers to the USA. Google it... Why therefore should the English W/P not reflect this usage? Ozdaren (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia? Checked a dictionary or encyclopaedia lately? They are the best kind of reference available on a word's current career—not Google—and that, as well as the constant debate between editors about this insignificant thing, is what the English Wikipedia reflects. For example, Encarta Encyclopedia (2000 ed.), in its America entry, opens with: "second-largest isolated landmass on Earth, comprising the two continents of the western hemisphere. America is a common designation for either or both North America and South America, for the western hemisphere as a whole, and for the United States of America..." The Columbia Encyclopedia (2008; 6th ed.), another U.S. publication, opens its America entry with: "(for Amerigo Vespucci), the lands of the Western Hemisphere..." The online Merriam Webster dictionary (link), another U.S. publication, shows you the same divided usage that almost every other dictionary will too. So until the usage of "America" to mean the landmass becomes so "very much less common" that it's excluded as one of the primary definitions of the word in reputable lexicographical sources, this page would be extremely flawed. Night w (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention that the style you're proposing isn't supported by WP:MOSDAB. Night w (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Night w. Most common and less common is what I said (ie when you speak to someone and say America, they initially assume you are talking about the USA unless a different context is established). I mentioned that the usage I believe is correct is used by the majority of English as a first language speakers. Thanks for the advice on dictionaries and encylodpaedias Ozdaren (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the word OF in the sentence UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?.

It is the same as the United States OF Mexico. I don't see an argument here. The page for Australia directs immediately to the Commonwealth of Australia country page, and the disambiguation link to the continent of Australia is at the top. The whole argument on this page seems derived from Anti-Americanism or personal bias, and not from a pertinent and real linguistic dilemma. You don't see Indonesia and New Guinea complaining about the Commonwealth of Australia's landing page, nor of the use of the word "Australian" as a national demonym as is seen on the American discussion page. --Extrabatteries (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
of course there is not an argument. I just wanted to know if originally OF was an partitive genitive or a genitive of origin or whatever. I do not care about a thing you call antiamericanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.83.180.2 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks.

"America" shouldn't redirect here. When speaking English, the term "America" refers to the United States. I guarantee that at least 99% of Wikipedia users who search for "America" click through to the United States article. It doesn't matter that other languages use "America" to refer to "the Americas." This ih the English language Wikipedia. This is absolute bollocks. 76.219.170.8 (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No redirecting is going on. This is the page for "America". Do you mean that "America" should redirect to United States (and this page should be renamed "America (disambiguation)") ?Shadzane (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. 168.91.255.100 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that note. If you speak English natively, and you use the word "America" you are referring to the United States. Also, North and South America are two continents if anyone wants to bring up that argument. Come on, can't we even call it what we call it on an English encyclopedia anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.45.223 (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If they are two continents or subcontinents... they are still called America or the Americas in English. And also... English is an international language, so... the usage of the words need to be in various context, not only for native speakers. People use English to communicate with others that not speak their language, you can't force those people to use and think that America is only the United States because you, as a native speaker, believe that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.112.57 (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You seem to miss the point with your first sentence. No one is claiming "the Americas" should refer to the US. On the contrary, that (much more common) way to refer to the two continents exists purely to avoid using "America" to refer to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.81.74 (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm late to this... but 190.118.112.57 is absolutely wrong. Native speakers define what ANY word means in a particular language. To turn his/her argument around native Spanish speakers have no right to tell me that the word America DOESN'T refer to the United States in that language. I sincerely doubt anyone would make that argument, so why do people think that they can make the equivalent argument in English? --Khajidha (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You can't turn around his/her argument because English and Spanish are different here. The word "America" to refer to North and South America in English exist, so we can say that America is a continent and it's correct. But in Spanish the meaning of America (or América) only has one meaning, a continent. So if you want to use America or América as synonym of the United States or Estados Unidos, then it's like saying that Europe or Europa is the United Kingdom or Reino Unido, something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.162.83.205 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
No, you are misinformed. A person saying something is "in America" is *always* referring to the United States. I understand that British people use the archaic phrasing "the Americas" to refer to North and South America collectively, and I am not suggesting that that article be deleted. The question is whether "America" refers to the land controlled by the United States of America (which is the government) or not. I could make the absurd statement that the United Kingdom does not refer to the nation that we normally think of, but that instead it refers to the union or Aragon and Castile. I could claim that it refers to all nations that still share a Queen on their stamps and coins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.239.79 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: America (disambiguation)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

America → America (disambiguation) – This move would allow the term America to redirect to United States, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The argument has been made that the term "America" refers to the combined North and South American landmass as well as to the United States of America. But this is not the referent for any of the top results obtained by googling America -wikipedia. (The top Latin American related result I noticed was on page 3.) The results from Bing are similar. (The top Latin result is No. 11.) Kauffner (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. "America" and "American" are ambiguous names in the English language.
  • America (for Amerigo Vespucci), the lands of the Western Hemisphere—North America, Central America, and South America. — The Columbia Encyclopedia: Sixth Edition (2008). (no mention of the United States)
  • America, second-largest isolated landmass on Earth, comprising the two continents of the western hemisphere. America is a common designation for either or both North America and South America, for the western hemisphere as a whole, and for the United States of America. — Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (2000). (no mention of the United States)
  • America (also the Americas) a land mass of the New World or western hemisphere, consisting of the continents of North and South America, joined by the Isthmus of Panama. — Reader's Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder. Reader's Digest Association Ltd (1993) New York. --p45. ISBN 0276421019 (no mention of the United States)
  • American adj. of America, esp. the United States. / n. native, citizen, or inhabitant of America, esp. the US. — The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary: 5th Ed. Oxford University Press (2002) South Melbourne. --p31. ISBN 0195515234 and The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English: 8th Ed. Oxford University Press (1992) London. --p37. ISBN 0198603452
  • American adj. 1 Belonging to the continent of America. Also, of or pertaining to its inhabitants. 2 Belonging to the United States. — The Oxford English Dictionary: 2nd Ed (Volume 1). Clarendon Press & Oxford University Press (1989) Oxford --p397. ISBN 0198611862
  • American n. 1 a native or citizen of the United States. 2 a native or inhabitant of the continents of America. — The Australian Oxford Dictionary: 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press (2004) South Melbourne. --p38. ISBN 0195517962
  • America [for Amerigo Vespucci], the lands of the Western Hemisphere - N. Amer. Middle Amer., and S. Amer. America and American are used frequently to refer specifically to the US. — The Columbia Gazetteer of the World: 2nd Ed. (Volume 1). Ed. Saul B. Cohen. Columbia University Press (1998) New York. --p95. ISBN 0231110405
  • America n. 1 the United States of America. 2 Also, the Americas. the North and South American continents, considered as a whole, and including Central America and offshore islands. — The Macquarie Dictionary: Federation Edition (Volume 1 of 2). The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd (2001) Sydney. --p57. ISBN 1876429151
  • America n. 1 United States 2 North America 3 South America 4 Also called the Americas. North and South America, considered together. — Random House Webster's College Dictionary. Random House, Inc (1996) New York. --p44. ISBN 0679438866
  • America is the great landmass of the Western Hemisphere...It is made up of North and South America... — The World Book Encyclopedia (Volume 1). World Book, Inc. (2006) Chicago. --p407. ISBN 0716601060
  • American adj. of or relating to the continents of America. / n. (1) a native or inhabitant of the continents of America. (2) a native or citizen of the United States. — The Australian National Dictionary: Fourth Edition (2004) Canberra. ISBN 0195517717.
  • American adj. relating to the United States or to the continents of America. / n. a person from the United States or any of the countries of North, South, or Central America. — Oxford Dictionary of English: Revised Edition (2005) London. ISBN: 9780198610571.
  • American adj. (1) belonging or relating to the United States of America. (2) belonging or relating to the American continent, its inhabitants, or their languages. / n. a citizen or inhabitant of, or person born in, the United States of America, or the American continent. — Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (2003) Edinburgh. ISBN 8186062262
  • American adj. of or relating to the continent America. — New Zealand Pocket Oxford Dictionary (1986) Wellington. ISBN: 0195581377.
Nightw 14:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests using incoming links, traffic stats, and Google rankings to determine primary topic. I see nothing about dictionaries and encyclopedias. The idea is to determine the topic most likely, "to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term". Kauffner (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
These are "tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors." There are "no absolute rules" and the policy in no way discourages evidence from other tools. Since traffic stats and incoming links are less than useful in this case, I have merely provided what is shown by another set of tools. Nightw 11:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Excellent research by Night w who proves that America is clearly ambiguous, so my !vote is basically "per Night w". In addition, referring to Google and Bing in the nomination is flawed as both are based in the US and have an inherent US bias. Jenks24 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is where WP:COMMONNAME falls down (again). The name of a continent has been usurped to describe a country which is also less ambiguously referred to as US or USA. 'South America' doesn't mean 'Southern USA'; 'Latin America' doesn't mean the parts of US where there are heavy concentrations of Spanish-speakers. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Which is why the common name guideline allows for exceptions. Rennell435 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, thanks to the evidence provided by Night w. It seems Google is not the only way of finding common name. Dictionaries and encyclopedias treat it as ambigious, we should as well. Rennell435 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (Personal attack removed) Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Not a very helpful comment that should probably be ignored/removed. FFMG (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
FFMG, don't censor other people's comments. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
That was me, not that it matters: "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Nightw 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89, feel free to use the history before commenting. Having said that, I should have removed the content _and_ reported Hot Stop. FFMG (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the reasons given by Night w. as well as other arguments given in the past. While America is often used to mean the US(of America), there is enough use of America as the continent to warrant this disambiguation page FFMG (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is already more than enough automatic assumption of US hegemony. NoeticaTea? 05:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. People looking for the continents are likely to type "The Americas" or "North America" or "South America". People searching for "America" are most likely looking for the United States. Google certainly agrees that people searching for "America" are most likely looking for the United States, and they know how to please their searchers. =) Powers T 13:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: "American" refering to inhabitants of the continent in general is more a romance language construct than an English one (and keep in mind that twice as many people live in the U.S. as in any other country in those continents; and the vast majority of English speakers live in the United States). I would also note that, while there are several definitions provided by Night, most of them refer to the United States. Furthermore, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, these does not have to be vetoed just because there are a lot of little secondary definitions...if "America" usually refers to the United States (which it does), it's the primary topic. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Except that the evidence provided is to the contrary of what you claim. Encyclopaedias give two primary meanings, some only refer to the landmass, and those that do mention the U.S. use it in a context relating to the landmass for clarification (e.g., "relating to the United States or to the continents of America"). Nightw 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, please note that the page being discussed here is America, not American. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Night w, and because people looking for any of the many other uses listed on the dab page (America (John Fahey album), for instance) by typing "America" in the search box shouldn't have to pass through the United States article to get to their destination. Deor (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much ambiguity in the name, despite Eddy Murphy, Neil Diamond, et al. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - True, more than half of people (from the US, at least) would probably be looking for the country, but "America" is simply too ambiguous. —Will(B) 02:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • If more than half of our readers are looking for a particular item, then by definition it's not very ambiguous. Powers T 11:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

China and America

Given that the People's Republic of China page was moved to China, due substantially to the current modern usage of the term "China", I think the move of the United States of America page to this page is deserving of reconsideration, the recently closed requested move discussion notwithstanding. A quick glance through the China discussion reveals that the admins and editors who supported the move based their opinion largely on the common use of "China" to refer to the PRC. Similarly, in the English language, the word "America" is used almost invariably to refer to the USA. The continents are referred to as North and South America, and collectively as the Americas - never "America".

I'm not advocating a move yet, but I would like to start a discussion that hopefully gathers more sources using "America" in different ways, so that we have a clearer picture. Right now I am sure that in ordinary speech "America" refers only to the USA. Google also reveals the same. The difference with the China scenario is that the USA is more commonly referred to as "the United States" or "the USA" or some other variant and less commonly as "America" in more formal published contexts, whereas "PRC" and "People's Republic of China" are less commonly used. Nonetheless, the key point is still that "America" almost always refers to the USA. Kraikk (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Never? As you can see from the sources provided above, there are two primary definitions of the name. You won't find corresponding evidence for "China". "America" is not, and has never been, an official short-form name of the United States. The two are totally different cases. Nightw 10:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The sources above are all encyclopedias and dictionaries, which would naturally provide all possible definitions of the term, just as "China" is often disambiguated in encyclopedias and dictionaries. I am not saying that "America" for USA is as common as "China" for PRC - USA, US, United States are very common as well. However, the cases are similar in that most users searching for "America" would be looking for USA. I believe this was the decisive factor in the China case. Searches on Google, Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar etc. reveal exclusively references to the USA, or the word America as part of "Latin America", "North America" or "South America". In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find a contemporary contextual use of "America" - without the 's' - to refer to the landmass. Kraikk (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What Is America

America is mostly referred to as The United States of America. America does not mean the continents North and South America, they are referred to as THE Americas and NOT America. America means The United States of America, NOT the continents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montoya 83 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, hopefully I am using Wikipedia correctly. I just want to mention that you are wrong. In Spanish America refers only and only to the continent. So, instead one could say, "in English America is mostly referred to as The United States of America; however, in Spanish America refers to as the continent, according to the historical and situational context the word is interchangeably used". How do I know this?, because myself and more than 350 million of people that lives in America and speak Spanish or Portuguese is telling you. We can prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akikax (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

  • On the Spanish Language Wikipedia, that would be a valid argument. But this is the English Language Wikipedia. We don't take the Spanish Language in to consideration any more than we take Russian, Mandarin Chinese, or Klingon.

Finally, I would like to add that even though this is English language Wikipedia (so far) the word America is the same for both languages. Therefore, I fair and real solution to this problem would be to show two links within the America page. One for the ones referring to America as the continent and one for the ones referring to America as one country. So, if I go to Google and search for America, this Wiki page appears showing to links. One for America (Continent), America (The USA). Everybody happy!!! Come'on guys it is not so difficult, and I am right... I can prove it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akikax (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Hello, Akikax. Have you, by any chance, actually read the Wikipedia page entitled America? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

America

America is mostly referred as "The United States of America". How can you prove this? America, the continent where I live, as there is not such continent "The Americas or Americas" has more than one country. Some examples are: Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina, Uruguay. Here, in all these countries America is referred as "America" our continent. The "United States of America" is the USA period. The only people "in the world" referring to "The United State of America" as America are the USA citizens which is incorrect. If French people were to refer themselves as "Europe" that is OK; however, this does not make the rest of the European countries to be "The Europeas". It is just wrong. Again, I can tell you that America is mostly referred as the continent America and this what should stated on this page. I can prove it... I can send you legal historical documents that proves my point. What do you have? Additionally, please try to be imparcial and objective, if you were to live in Chile, how would you call The USA, "America", hey... you cannot as you are already in America the continent. Sorry, if it so hard to understand... (however if it is, this would explain the Miss USA's answers...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akikax (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

  • First off, whatever American citizens choose to call America is, by definition, correct. If a new nation in Europe formed and decided to name itself "Europe" that would be the name of that nation. Second off, as has been said over and over, there is nowhere in the English language (And that's the only language that matters on the English Wikipedia) where the singular word "America" refers to anything but the United States. It is only in the last 10 years that people have randomly decided to make an issue of this, fueled by transparent anti-Americanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephalon1 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe people in many English speaking countries are talking about the continent when they say America. The English wikipedia page on "continent" has many references to a continent named America. Also I don't think that this issue is fueled by anti-USAism, simply many of us in other countries have just recently came to know that people in the USA are confused with these terms. There is no such confusion anywhere else although there are some references to USA which use the word America, for example "american clothing" in Costa Rica means used clothes imported from the USA and some people refer to the USA embassy as American Embassy, but that is all.Acuna007 (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


No, that is not all, and you're full of shit. You have firsthand experience of people in a country other than the US referring to the US as "American," but won't consider that that may be the worldwide standard.
Anyway, from my experience, in England, Germany, Italy, and in South Korea, people ask if I'm "American". They clearly mean a citizen of the United States.



If a new nation in Europe formed and decided to name itself "Europe" that would still be the name of the continent. Or do you think that then we would have to call the continent otherwise? And note that the issue is not whether America is a continent or not. Even if it is not, the thing is that North and South America are the north and south parts of the whole landmass called America, and it is defined as such in any good English dictionary. And this has nothing to do with an anti-USA sentiment, it is rather a restored pro-Americanism (the original America). Calin99 (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
North America + South America = America, like... North Korea + South Korea = Korea, and not "the Koreas". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.223.24 (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
But North Carolina + South Carolina = the Carolinas and North Dakota + South Dakota = the Dakotas.

America word in Spanish Vs English

Guys, please, based on the following information let's try to find an agreement point here: In all Spanish texts America is the continent, in all English-USA texts America is the country. We need to have different versions to explain the word America according to the language and situation. Or you could simple add this explanation to the Wiki America text. English-USA text books referred to The USA as America because of historical reasons (I will not argue this point anymore, it is hopeless) and Spanish-all-America and English-Canada texts refers to America as the continent. Again, is it possible to include this into Wiki page of America. This is correct and I can prove it. And please, stop citing Google as reference and USA-texts as reference as, precisely, they were written or belong to "America" or as it is correct The USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akikax (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia, so what does the meaning of a word in Spanish have to do with anything? That's my big problem with many of the people arguing that America shouldn't redirect to USA, they keep mentioning other languages. What any string of letters or sounds means in any one language is totally irrelevant to what it means and how it should be defined in any other language. --Khajidha (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

English doesn't belong to one country. It's a language spoken worldwide, including by those who communicate with non-native English speakers. An encyclopedia should stand for History and Amerigo Vespucci was a sailor hired by the Portuguese. America is, therefore, the name of the whole continent. If you don't accept this definition, then at least an encyclopedia should at least contain such historic background. I am, therefore, in favor of the page how it is today. Just one comment: Brazilians, who don't speak Spanish but Portuguese, also refer to the continent as America. If I'm speaking English with a non-American (which happens quite often), I'll refer to the continent as America. Period. Jgsodre (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand where this confusion is coming from. In the English language there is no continent named "America." It simply doesn't exist. There is a North America continent. There is a South America continent. There is no America continent.--68.39.25.109 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
If you look up the word continent in the English Wikipedia you will see that 3 of the 5 continent naming schems mention a continent called America. I don't believe that the language makes any difference because I can speak in whatever language with my fellow Central Americans and we all know that we are part of the continent called America. I think mostly people in the USA are confused with this. Acuna007 (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Just because those other continent schemes are illustrated doesn't mean that they are used by English speakers. In the English language there is no continent named "America", and yes it does matter what language is used. Continents are defined in each language differently. Those definitions are set by the native speakers of each language. Yes, the history should be (and is) covered here but current usage in English should take primacy. How other languages characterize the continents should be mentioned as well, but again current English usage should take primacy. --Khajidha (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America_(disambiguation)/Archive_3&oldid=1146369584"