First of all, the page looks great and is a welcome addition to Wikipedia. For instance, I did not know about the Federal Republic of Central America. To your question of title: I would go with "Definitions of regions in the Americas". Do you have a usage book handy? It might indicate the preferred preposition to follow definition. Are you aware of the article British Isles (terminology)? You may want to consider following some patterns with that one, specifically the title. I cannot think of any missing regions. You give the page a comprehensive nature by including the two defunct countries. I can't help you with the coding of the images. I actually prefer the one single column, but I may change my mind when I see the two columns. By the way, your map of the CSA in the world includes different territory than the similar map on the CSA article (Image:CSAlocation2.png). You may need to expand your coverage of Anglo-America to specifically deal with the issue of Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, and several other Caribbean nations. Also, I'm worried about having the off shade of green cover both Quebec and Belize. What is your reasoning there? If I think of other comments, I will post them. -Acjelen 22:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Thanks for your prompt feedback and praise. In response:
(1) I'm aware of the British Isles article, but it didn't click to entitle this article similarly. Perhaps "Americas (terminology)" would suffice? It works for me: it's simple and obviates me digging through my many usage guides to determine what's proper. :)
As for modelling this article on that one, that might be a bit grandiose just yet: while I like some notions in that article (particularly the Venn diagram), it reiterates much content found in the parent articles. (Also note that the BI article cites fewer sources.) This article is only meant to be a brief overview for clarity and aptly linked/sourced. As well, I think the Americas maps clearly depict relevant territories.
(2) Regarding the CSA: Oxford/Webster's dictionaties and Cassell's The American Civil War by Brian Holden Reed (ISBN 0-304-35230-6), indicate/depict that the CSA was comprised of just eleven states. While I acknowledge that various other territories were allied to either side, I'm sticking to what I can cite. For example, Cassell's depicts Missouri as allied with the Union despite advocating slavery, while the unsourced larger map in the CSA article indicates Southern allegiance.
(3) While I can cite definitions for Anglo-America, finding a list of constituents is elusive. One source defines it as just the U.S. and Canada (dark green) and with no distinction regarding Quebec despite the obvious prevalence of French there. Similarly, I colourised Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, and several other Caribbean territories (in addition to Quebec) lighter shades of green because -- while English is spoken in each locale or have English/British roots (c.f. Commonwealth of Nations) -- other languages are prevalent in each (viz., Creole).
(4) Similarly, Latin America (dark green) includes Spanish/Portuguese territories; from what I can determine, it is sometimes described to include primarily French-/Creole speaking territories, like in the Caribbean (and those territories are coloured lighter green) or Quebec (in Anglo-America, uncoloured).
Why the mention of West Indies Federation (no "America" there). Also the pro-Confederate government of Missouri was run out of the state by federal troops early in the war, so the state stayed in the Union, but a Confederate government-in-exile was established in Texas. Rmhermen 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thanks for the feedback. The mention of the West Indies Federation is more due to the fact that the Caribbean – effectively a synonym for West Indies – is a major geographic/geopolitical region of the Americas (hence worthy of note) and for balance. As for the CSA and further to the discussions above, I've issues with the map renditions in that article and have stated as much on its talk page.
This article has since been placed at Americas (terminology), and the formative archive on its talk page is a copy of the discussions here. If there are no objections, I'll copy everything here into that and we can resume there. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
