Jump to content

Talk:America (disambiguation)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Neutrality issue

I see an obvious neutrality issue here. Native English Speakers, those whom this article services. Those who write these articles, and those who would use these articles are not the people arguing over the use of the word "America".

Everyone who speaks English natively from the UK, US, NZ, Australia, Canada and everyone else I left out here uses the word "America" to refer to the United States of America. The only people speaking otherwise are people who do not speak English natively and those who sympathize with a very leftist ideology and ethnic nationalism on the part of Latin Americans who wish to change the way the English language is used. This is a neutrality issue.

America should automatically send you to the United States of America page and that is how it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.79.205 (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We all know that there's a dispute about the meaning of "America", but you haven't really explained how this is a neutrality issue. It's not like Macedonia or Taiwan for instance; it's just a matter of writing style. South Americans want you to stop shortening the name of your country? So what? It's not as if there's a controversy. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC))
I don't really see it as a political issue or a neutrality issue, but the anon HAS identified the root problem. The people arguing against the primary topic of "America" in the English language being "United States of America" ARE NOT ENGLISH SPEAKERS. Any reference book written in English should use the conceptions of the English speaking world as primary and mention non-English language conceptions secondarily. In any other language's wikipedia it would go without saying that the native speakers determine the basic meanings and usages of a word. I fail to see why the English wikipedia should be any different. For non-native English speakers to come to this site and attempt to dictate the meanings of words in the English language is rude, arrogant and back-seat driverism. --Khajidha (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Your're both dead wrong. I'm a native English speaker, and to me America=North and South America together, just as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The OED is the most authoritative English dictionary there is, so proper usage conforms to the OED definition. Usage that deviates from the OED is wrong, plain and simple.--Epikuro57 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
English is and international language, spoken worldwide, and there are many people that refers to the United States as the US, USA, the States, and never as America, because America is a continent for many people including myself. North America is the north part of this continent and South America is the south. Both of these landmasses/subcontinents are America because they can't be Europe or any other continent, they are America. Also... "America" is not, and has never been, an official name of the United States, there is no country in the whole world oficially called "America". The United States is the United States, and nothing more. Its name means: "States that are united in the continent of America", and not that the country is called America. So... if you say that there is no continent called America... me and many but many people will tell you that there is no country called America, and that is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.223.74 (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The truth about the string of letters "America" is that it is used in multiple languages, in each of those languages it has certain connotations and denotations. The problem is that people who do not speak English as their primary language are trying to force the English word to take on the connotations and denotations of other languages. To native English speakers the conception of a continent of America is odd and foreign, it simply is not used that way in English-only contexts. Similarly, to native Spanish speakers (for example) the conception of a country of America is odd and foreign. The question is "which conception should take precedence in an English language reference work?" How is the idea that an English work should use English definitions strange? I don't go to the Spanish wikipedia and say that they have to give priority to my English-language informed conception of what "America" means, why is it that the reverse is so common? --Khajidha (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Not only in Spanish, there are many languages that not recognise America as a country but a continent, because as I said before... there's no country in the world "officially" called America. The United States of America is "officially" called: the United States, the U.S., and the U.S.A, but not America. Also In English... America also means "the Americas" and this is listed on English dictionaries, encyclopaedias and in the same English wikipedia.--200.121.239.54 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
You can say this as often as you like, but it is not true. There is no country in the world officially called "The United States." That large country in North America is called "The United States of America." If you don't believe me, look at their money. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no country in the world officially called Mexico either. Or Germany. Or Japan. And you still avoided my point. 200 dot whatever refers again to other languages, what a word means in another language is completely irrelevant to what it means in modern English usage. "America" does not mean "the Americas" in English sources, despite what the dictionaries say. It DID mean that, prior to 1776 and is still sometimes used for that meaning when referring to that time period. Dictionaries often maintain definitions for a word long past the point that it ceases to be used that way. But, it is not used that way in monolingual situations today. The page here on the English wikipedia even states that this conception is not utilized by modern English speaking populations, it is merely included as an illustration of different ways of looking at the world. But notice that the introductory paragraph on the continent article presents North America and South America as separate continents, because this is the norm for English language usage. --Khajidha (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a very simple reason why native English speakers refer to the "United States" as "America". It is because people from the U.S. are called Americans. Non-native speakers of English need to get out of the way on this one. I don't go over to the Spanish Wikipedia and try to force an English world view on them by telling them that "Americano" means someone from the United States. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Russ, I believe you. The article of the United States of America is "United States", that is its official short name, America isn't. Obviously the United States of America is the full name, like saying... the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", every country in the world has a short name like: Mexico, Brazil, etc, and they are official short names (that's why the name of those articles are Mexico and Brazil, because they are official names), whereas America isn't an official short name of the United States of America. On the other hand... people from the American continent are Americans too. And as I said before... English is an international language, and not only for native speakers, you need to consider this fact, and there are many people using the English wikipedia and don't want to enter to the United States article when they are looking for the continent.--190.43.73.234 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

While English is an international language and is used by many non-native speakers, it is the native speakers who set the meanings of words. The non-native speakers are just borrowing the language, it is bad form for them to expect their conceptions (rooted as they are in their own native languages) to be given precedence or even equality with the native conceptions. --Khajidha (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, as a native speaker of English, speak for yourself. Words can have multiple meanings. This is not a concept that only exists in other languages, no matter how much you try to pin it as such. I object to having my views ignored and your POV given special credence simply because you dismiss my ideology. I could just as easily say that the US is only called "America" by ignorant cultural chauvinists who give my country a bad name. And, again, wikipedia is supposed to reflect a worldview, America do not own the English wikipedia, no matter how you think you do.65.0.96.247 (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So a non-native English speaker is once again telling us his problems with our language. That is his problem. America is never used to refer to the Americas. Native English speakers never refer to America as a continent, there are two continents of North and South America. This discussion is pointless as the only people arguing otherwise are non-native English speakers and this pushing a POV and is just plain intellectually dishonest. A great start would be to put the article on the United States of America on top. Further discussion, will lead most to agree that it should redirect to the United States article. Now, would a native english speaking person give me a logical refutation of why Native English speaking people's language is wrong? Neutrality is in question here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.80.166 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Your're dead wrong. I'm a native English speaker, and to me America=North and South America together, just as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The OED is the most authoritative English dictionary there is, so proper usage conforms to the OED definition. Usage that deviates from the OED is wrong, plain and simple.--Epikuro57 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, first of all, the source you cited was the "Oxford Dictionaries", not the OED. Second, the definition includes a second meaning you (intentionally?) omitted, "Used as a name for the United States." Third, usage that deviates from the OED is not "wrong"; language evolves. Other than those points, however, I agree with everything you said.  :-) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact that a few native English language speakers use America to mean the continent doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming English language usage of the word, both within and outside the USA, is to refer to the country. That doesn't mean that the other definitionas are not valid, just that they are not the common usage. I do find it strange that Latin Americans haven't evolved past their own pro-European biases and selected a word for their continent(s) that is not named after a white European male. I'm sure that there are names in the indiginous languages of the the Americas that would be better suited to the more-culturally enlightened peoples of Latin America (and some from Tuponia, of course). This would then allow Latin Americans and certain Tuponians to campaign on WP to have the names of North and South America changed to the new, more culturally-sensitive name, and give US citizens more oppurtunities to be critical of "ignorant cultural chauvinists who give my country a bad name". :) - BilCat (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully

I hope there's no contribution re: my recent edit. I dropped in three references (I cannot ever remember doing that for a disambiguation page, but I think this is a fairly controversial topic) from The Americas, and I hope that stalls any discontent. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[1] Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
And I've reverted you. Your own source says: "Since the 16c, a name of the western hemisphere, often in the plural Americas and more or less synonymous with the New World. Since the 18c, a name of the United States of America. The second sense is now primary in English: ... However, the term is open to uncertainties." Those uncertainties are precisely what this disambiguation page should reflect (to say nothing of the "Since the 16c . . ." sentence). All this speaks to usage in English, not just "in foreign languages" according to your edit, that needs to be disambiguated here. Deor (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, and that's why I didn't want to unilaterally move the page. There are slight shades of nuance and ambiguity, which is why I still included the link to the Americas. What was inappropriate about the edit? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Besides being (in my opinion) unnecessarily discursive for a dab page, your edit said that the use of America and its cognates for the Americas is confined to "other languages", which is certainly not the case. What the people objecting to the current state of this page don't seem to understand is the purpose of a disambiguation page; the niceties of the usage of America and Americas is properly covered at Americas#America or Americas. Deor (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

When a native english speaker uses the word "America" to refer to the United States it's understood. Therefore this page is obviously some concession to non-native english speakers which is dishonest on an english wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.45.94 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was born in Peru. What am I "in English"? I know I'm a Peruvian and somebody else may be a Californian or a Scottish, but in a broader sense I am an American as the Scottish one is a European. Calin99 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
In English, you are a "South American". In English speaking usage South America and North America are separate continents and there is no conception of a larger America of which they are parts. This is similar to the astronomical term dwarf planet which is not considered to be a type of planet. --Khajidha (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
People from America or Americas are Americans, so... a Peruvian, Mexican, Canadian, Argentinian, Jamaican, Dominican, etc are definitely Americans. "South American" means "American from the south" literally. A Peruvian is an American from the south part of America/s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.212.186 (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
You're missing the point. That usage of America isn't the common English meaning and South America is not commonly thought of as the southern part of a larger America, it is thought of as a distinct thing. --Khajidha (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, see: Geography of South America, it reads: "Geographically, South America is generally considered a continent forming the southern portion of the American landmass". It is not a distinct thing. In the American and Americas article, you can see the demonym as "American", and "America" also means the lands of the western hemisphere in English. So... all the nationalities that were posted above are definitely American ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.219.135 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

English speakers, do not refer to anyone other than Citizens of the United States of America as Americans. Mexicans can not be Mexicans and Americans. Peruvians can not be Peruvians and Americans. It's how the English language works and I am tired of foreigners who don't speak English natively saying otherwise. This article is NPOV, Un-encyclopedic. Just quit messing with the English Wikipedia, you have a spanish wikipedia and you can stay there.

"America" needs to redirect to the article about the Nation whose people call themselves American, and refer to their nation as America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.43.224 (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Who appointed you the dictator of the English language? Who gave you the right to speak for all Americans? 65.0.96.247 (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not about "dictatorship", but common usage in the English language. That's determined by observation of the term's usage in the English language. - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The French aren't European, amirite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.54.169.196 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No, you're not right. - BilCat (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"America" needs to redirect to the article about the Nation whose people call themselves American
Currently "South Africa" and "South America" are linked correctly, even if the second link is a disambiguation page. How absurd it would be if we had "South America". Fridek (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

South Africa links to the country article, while Southern Africa links to the article about the Southern region of the African continent. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Two overlooked points

The recent discussions on this page seem to have overlooked the following two salient points:

  1. This page is for discussion of the content of the Wikipedia page America, not a forum for general discussion of language or terminology. As the guideline linked above explains, "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article[.]" The last section of discussion seems to be missing any suggestions for improvement of the America page.
  2. "America" and "American" are two different words. Users wishing to discuss the content of the American page are welcome to do so at Talk:American. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM doesn't apply to those discussions, they were about the article, and how usage of the word applied to the relevance of where this article pointed (or disambiguated). Discussing why an edit was reverted isn't using a talk page for a forum. - SudoGhost 23:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

Why is United States of America not on top of this disam list? It honestly baffles me why logic has not been dictated here. When a native English speaker uses the word "America" it is always in reference to the United States of America, that is not up for debate as that is verifiable fact.

America (in the English language) is the equivalent of Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Cuba, Korea, China. Those not being the "official" name of any of the Nations I mentioned in this sentence. The point is, anti-americanism is making wikipedia look stupid. I don't go on the Portugese wiki and demand they mention our definition of America, American and so on.

This is a double standard that needs to be acknowledged by whomever is in charge of this disambiguation page. Put the United States of America on top of this list. Than we can work together to get it to redirect to the United States of America article after we stop playing political correctness with Latin Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.43.224 (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

United States of America not on top of the list because of alphabetical order. There's no conspiracy to placate Latin Americans in that.Shadzane (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't make the current format correct. The most common definition ought to be at the top of the list. There's no obvious reason that alphabetical order should be used, other than that was the previous claimed consesnus. Consensus can and does change. - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This whole article is here to placate Latin American's sensitivities as far as I am concerned. When a monoglot English speaker says "America" he or she does not think of North and South America. There is your proof of the matter, now who is gonna put the United States Article on Top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.46.203 (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Since no reasonable objections were raised here to reordering the list by most common usage, I have implemented the change as the new consesnus. - BilCat (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Nobody's raising any objections on this thread because we've all gone through numerous endless threads over it before. Consensus from the previous lengthy debates is to just keep the two alphabetised, and it's been stable that way for a long while. Otherwise there's just constant edit warring and arguing over primary meaning. Rennell435 (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, consesnsus can and does change. "We discussed it a long time ago" isn't a valid argument. The primary meaing in English is already established, whether or not some will continue to argue over it. - BilCat (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The miaowing in English is already established. It can refer to the country or the continent (among some other meanings). Have a good senscape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingerinthevecindaddelchavo (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is it that you're trying to convey. I followed your link and the first link is http://www.clubamerica.com.mx/ See also ubuntu. Dark descent have amnesia (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
When I follow the link I get a bunch of different links like "American Airlines", "America's Story from America's Library", "America's Test Kitchen", "America's Got Talent", "America's Army", "Bank of America", "Feeding America". Those are the first seven links - all about America (or as some would call it, the United States). All the links on the first page are about America. None are about the Americas, or South America, just America.
Just right there we have 7 uses of "America" to refer to America. What uses do we have of "America" referring to the Americas. Someone above mentioned "Columbus discovered America" (which is honestly a bit confusing - I was fairly old when I learned that he actually found Hispanola first). Any other commmon usages, or is that it? Anyone claiming "America" typically means something other than America in English should provide a bunch of examples because Kauffner's google search pretty quickly provides a bunch of examples where "America" means America. Readin (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The country is the United States of America The "of America" part in it's name is because the country belongs to the American continent. "America" isn't an official name for the United States like saying... "Mexico" instead of "United Mexican States". The official short name for the United States of America is United States, not America.--190.232.66.20 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence please. The google search turned up only uses of "America" that referred to America, nothing tha referred to the Americas or anything else. We're not talking about official usage. For article names and links we do common usage. The common usage for "America" is clear - the evidence shows it refers to America. Readin (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

While that might have been true in 1776 - it is debatable, as English language usage was already changing by that time - it certainly is not true now. By the way, you may be surprised to know that there is at least one country in South America where America does mean the "United States", not "the Americas". - BilCat (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

America (ship)

There is another notable ship named America: America (privateer) — Private Armed Ship America of Salem. The captain was Jacob Crowninshield, from a family of shippers that ran the firm of George Crowninshield and Sons of Salem (Crowninshield family). Notable for (among other things) bringing the first elephant ("Old Bet") to America (with Nathaniel Hathorne, the father of Nathanial Hawthorne).
See:

  • Goodwin, George G. (1951). "The Crowninshield Elephant : The surprising story of Old Bet, the first elephant ever to be brought to America". Pick from the Past. Natural History. Retrieved 29 January 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Crowninshield, Bowdoin Bradlee (1901). An Account of the Private Armed Ship "America" of Salem: with appendix and five plates. Salem, Mass.: Essex Institute. p. 76. OCLC 3502150. Online: University of Michigan, Digitized Jul 28, 2005
~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

criteria for resolution of "temporary no consensus" close

This isn't working, so I'm reopening move request. As pointed out and discussed here (as if the stat counter website didn't warn us), the page view stats are volatile and unreliable. Indeed, the stats are very easy to manipulate, either intentionally (by someone here) or unintentionally (by visitors who aren't aware of this experiment). But even if they're not manipulated, they vary so much from day to day it's hard to make any conclusions from them. Moreover, a review of the July 4 data, which has been brought up a number of times here, seems to give credence to the "curious click theory", as on the day there was, aside from an uptick in page views to the United States article, there were also upticks in page views to the Americas article, America, Buenos Aires Province, article, and the America, Limburg, article. So, I'll replace the second week of this experiment with a continuation of the above move request discussion. The data is down here if anyone's interested or if anyone finds it relevant, but I don't think you should spend the entire week over-analyzing it; it seems enough of that was done over the past week. -- tariqabjotu 18:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding this edit, I just wanted to check what criteria would be applied. The criteria from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined. The latter first, as it is easier to parse. I think in the context of this "experiment, more likely than all the other topics combined would mean that traffic for the redirect at United States of America (redirect) is greater than half of the total traffic for the disambiguation page. Meeting that criteria would also satisfy the other, except in unusual situations, as where, for example, Link A has 51% of the total and Link B has 45% of the total and other links on the page account for the remainder. In such a case, it could be argued that Link A is not much more likely than any other topic. Unfortunately, there is no universally agreed on definition for 'much more likely. Some editors have advocated an order of magnitude (or more) difference between the putative primary topic and any other single topic. Other editors are satisfied with less dramatic majorities. I'm not sure its possible to agree in advance what threshold would be acceptable, but I hope when the stats are revisited later that the closer does keep in mind that however vague, the criteria is much more likely than any other topic. older ≠ wiser 20:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. One thing that might actually be happening with the page is that people come to America, see it's a disamb page, and click on the United States (or whatever), but also have their interest piqued by something else on the page ("huh? Oh, how come they would call that America? *click*) and open it in a new tab. But it's hard to see a much better solution because the core question is what people are wanting when they type in "America". Red Slash 21:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I am aware of the text under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; I removed the word "much" so I wouldn't box myself into a corner. That being said, no, I'm not looking for an order of magnitude. A 1:1 ratio (between United States of America (redirect) and Americas (redirect)) would not be sufficient, but a 2:1 ratio would probably be sufficient. I don't feel it's necessary to compare the page views for each redirect to the page views of the entire page; we don't know for sure if everyone who lands on the disambiguation page actually clicks on one of the links (instead of, for example, pressing the Back going to return from whence they came). It seems clear enough without empirical evidence that the remaining links on that page would certainly be far less likely to be clicked (even combined) than either the link to United States or the link to Americas, especially if we were to filter out (if it were possible) the people who are clicking on one of those links just because they're suddenly curious. -- tariqabjotu 02:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed a point that may be relevant under the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 'A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.' I think 'America' regarding the land mass may come under this due to it's continued historical use and the fact that 'America' is not used officially across the anglosphere to describe the USA, however I may not have interpreted this correctly. It also says 'In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic.' Regards, Rob (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I could also be argued that Ireland, Britain and China have clear "primary topics", yet not keeping these as disambigs might seem to be making too much of a political point for reasons of "neutrality"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, I should have checked them before posting. It turns out Ireland is an article in its own right, and China is the primary topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
At Ireland there has been a discussion about this though and they did consider redirecting the term to a disambiguation page and moving the article to Ireland (Island). I think the move didn't go ahead due to the fact that the Republic of Ireland is often criticised for having 'Ireland' as it's official name, especially by Brits. Regards, Rob (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point. "China" could officially refer to one of two countries, or to dishware, and so there is a disambiguation page. Technically one could point out that all official uses of the term refer neither the of the countries nor the dishware but instead refers to some hypothetical combination of the two countries. However most usages of "China" are not official and most usages refer to the larger of the two countries so while a dab page exists for "China", the primary topic is China. Readin (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't believing you're interpreting that correctly. The way I understand it, that provision is there to prevent temporal primary topics from usurping long-term primary topics. For example, perhaps now people searching for Pacific Rim are looking for this year's film of that name, but in the long term people will be looking for the countries around the Pacific Ocean. However with "America" having been used to refer to the United States specifically for many, many (a couple hundred?) years, this isn't an issue. Long-term and historical significance has been established for the topic United States (and the application of "America" to it), even if it's not as long-term as Americas. -- tariqabjotu 18:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't have substantially greater enduring notability however you could argue that it has greater educational value. In most of the Anglo-Sphere the term 'America' would not be used official to describe the USA whereas the term would be used official to describe the land mass. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
"official to describe the land mass"??? Please explain and give a reference. In the above discussion Readin (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Article titles and redirects do not go by what is "official", but what is most likely. - SudoGhost 19:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case then what exactly does educational value mean? Rob (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
As far as titles and redirects are concerned? Nothing. Content is where the "educational value" lies. - SudoGhost 22:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Rob said, "'America' is not used officially across the anglosphere to describe the USA" WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says nothing about "official" uses of a term. Official is just one POV. As for usages "across the anglosphere", in reading the discussion I saw may assertions that "America" isn't used for America in other English-speaking countries, but no evidences presented. What I did see was a link to a search of a BBC news site demonstrating "America" being used exclusively to refer to America rather than the Americas. Readin (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Stats

View statistics (running total)
Day America total United States redirect Americas redirect Other link or dead end
12 July 80 40
13 July 576 213 129 234
14 July 630 224 167 239
15 July 886 314 273 299
16 July 890 279 299 345
17 July 793 402 129 262
18 July 1033 304 459 270
19 July 919 297 302 320

I had a look at the first full day of stats from this little exercise. 13 Jul America had 576 hits[2], 213 took the United States redirect [3] and 129 took the Americas redirect [4]. So 36% of people are taking the US, 22% are taking the Americas and 41% are taking neither.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I'm reluctant to look at the way you, or anyone else involved in this request, presents the numbers. So, while, sure, it'd be helpful for all these numbers to be in one place, don't expect me to, for example, conclude that only 36 percent of people are looking for the U.S. or only 22 percent of people are looking for Americas. -- tariqabjotu 23:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
They're just numbers. How they get used is, I suppose, a question for two weeks time.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The overall numbers are lower than I expected. I guess I sort of expected something in the thousands. (redacted) Readin (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. (redacted) -- tariqabjotu 04:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
From 6 June to 15 July, average view stats for America was 792 and a median or 825. If you remove the blip relating to Fourth of July in the United States (I went with two days before, the day of and the day after) the average is 780 with a median of 770. For the last 90 days, 13 July was the lowest (576 views) and 4th of July being the highest (1498 views). The only other statistical blip I see is around 29 May(1113 views), but I don't what event may was the driver over that. In general, 700-800 range is the page's regular views.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Memorial Day. -- tariqabjotu 17:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It's possible but the highest number of hits was two full days after Memorial Day. It would seem highly unusual for view two days later to exceed the holiday itself.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The "Other link or dead end" stats are irrelevant to the topline comparison per se since I guess they're just this page's views sans the two redirect views, and we don't know what topic those people came looking for. Regarding the "beans" redaction, I think that's obvious and I've shared the concerns expressed all along. Hopefully admin has the capability of addressing it to ensure a fair process.VictorD7 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
While the "Other link or dead end" stats in and of themselves are not that important in that they can be derived from the others, they are relevant for determining primary topic in that they provide an indication as to whether any single topic is searched for more than all of the others combined. I.e., a primary topic should be greater than the "other" of the two main topics plus the other links or dead ends. Granted, it is an imperfect measure, but any claims to being a primary topic should be clear on both of the traffic criteria. older ≠ wiser 22:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It's quite clear you're just setting up your move review in the event this requested move is fulfilled. -- tariqabjotu 23:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't actually care all that much what the result is, though I do care about editors and admins who ignore guidelines whenever they are inconvenient to what they want. If you've already decided what you're going to do, then why bother waiting and why bother with a pretense that actual evidence might make a difference? older ≠ wiser 23:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you have evidence of me doing this? Surely you can't be referring to the Echo move you failed to get overturned, right? What I will do at the end of this is not already known; if it was, I would have just done that. I just don't need you unsubtly repeating what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, as if I haven't and couldn't read it myself, so that you can point to it when you launch a move review. -- tariqabjotu 00:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Look, just chill. I really have no beef with you personally. Sure I was disappointed with the results at Talk:Echo#Requested move given the complete lack of any credible evidence whatsoever in support of the move. As I commented elsewhere, we might as well remove page views as a criteria for primary topic since it is routinely ignored. I have no plans to launch a move review and no, my comments here were not intended for that purpose. Given the edit you made to your closing, I really did just want to be clear on what sort of criteria would be used at the end of two weeks. older ≠ wiser 01:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Bkonrad is almost certainly (I guess you can't know anything) acting in good faith, and I do appreciate his wisdom, even though I wish he'd applied his wisdom towards moving the page, instead of opposing smile. I think he, like you (Tariqabjotu) our closer, VictorD7 my fellow supporter, and everyone else involved, is dancing around the fact that we have no better tool than grok, which explicitly says "I wouldn't base any important decisions on these stats". Red Slash 09:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No, they aren't relevant for determining primary topic status because they're apples and oranges: link clicks and America page views. Many of the "dead end" page views are no doubt people searching for the USA article. The only thing being tested here is whether there's a significant difference between the redirect pages for the top two topics, the other page items likely being negligible. VictorD7 (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's one way of looking at it I suppose. I disagree. The criteria based on usage is that a topic is both much more likely than any other single topic and more likely than all other topics combined. Although admittedly imperfect, when the disambiguation page is at the base name, the difference between the number of visits to the disambiguation page and those of a topic does give a rough indication of the ratio between that topic and all the others combined. older ≠ wiser 02:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Nope. The criteria doesn't say anything about comparing specific page link clicks to overall page views, a misleading tactic that any honest, intelligent person would instantly dismiss as not just "imperfect", but fatally flawed. Presumably at least some portion (possibly a large portion) of page viewers don't click on any link, and there's no mechanism in this test to determine how many "dead end" viewers were seeking the USA page but backtracked or opted to retype a search. However, determining whether there's a significant difference between those who click on the USA link and those who click on the Americas link might very well be useful in confirming primacy, and that's the scope of this test. VictorD7 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
By your interpretation, there is no point to comparing the click-throughs for the top two pages either, because the criteria doesn't say anything about that. You can make all sort of speculations about why users do whatever they do. However imperfect, it does give a rough measure of what persons going to the disambiguation page are looking for. older ≠ wiser 03:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No, you brought up "the criteria" as a defense of using a blatant apples and oranges comparison, and I just pointed out that making such an invalid comparison wouldn't accomplish the purpose set out in the criteria, and certainly isn't mandated by it. Page views might be relevant for other aspects of this debate, but the only thing being measured by this test are link clicks. BTW, to illustrate a point made earlier about the USA actually driving traffic to other sites (including the Americas), people should check out the 90 day page view count of the Americas article. Note the lonely and very salient spike on July 4, when the views almost doubled from the previous day (and from what looks like the rough average). Given a similar large (but proportionally smaller) spike on the US page on America's Independence Day, it's safe to say that most or all of this increase resulted from people seeking the USA page (or one of the nation's various subpages) but ending up on the Americas page by a variety of means, possibly by seeing a link to it somewhere and clicking on it out of curiosity. A similar spike on the America page indicates that a portion of this USA driven traffic came through here. Though magnified by the holiday, it'd be surprising if this wasn't a daily phenomenon, indicating that even this ongoing test is showing a somewhat skewed usage picture, though at least this test is apples to apples, and despite the likely skewing and a suspiciously increasing uptick for Americas clicks from the first day's 80-40 count and second day's near two to one ratio, the USA is still holding a significant lead. VictorD7 (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No, the total count of traffic to the disambiguation page "America" is a legitimate approximation of the number of people who are looking for something named "America". The traffic to the two redirects are fair approximations of the number looking for either of those two topics. It is not an unreasonable assumption that a significant portion of the remainder were not looking for either of the two topics. I have no vested interest in what the results show, but I am concerned where zealot groupthinkers are incapable of conceiving that something might be other than what they think they know. older ≠ wiser 11:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No, your first sentence is mostly correct, but the others are all false. Your mistake is assuming that page clicks are a legitimate measure of those viewing the American page who were looking for that particular topic, when it involves a different activity (apples and oranges), and is only useful for weighing against page clicks for another topic (apples to apples). VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree. That has been used in similar situations in the past. It is at best an approximation, but it is inexcusable to ignore entirely. older ≠ wiser 19:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak to whether people have erroneously compared link click apples with page view oranges in the past, but if so it would hardly be the only clumsy ignorance ever exhibited on Wikipedia. Fortunately we aren't bound by such an alleged precedent. VictorD7 (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, you can bind yourself to whatever ignorance you choose, but it is simply inexcusable to dismiss the stats as you do. older ≠ wiser 19:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No one's dismissing stats, just their abuse. I explicitly said earlier that America page views have a place in this discussion, but not in fallaciously having them serve as the denominator under the redirect views in question (an entirely different category) to generate meaningless figures sloppily labeled "percentages". I prefer exposing ignorance to binding myself to it (see the elucidative "false positive" exchange above). We have no reason to assume that a large percentage of America page views don't end without resulting in any clicked links, or that a significant chunk of the "dead end" views aren't seeking the USA page. VictorD7 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You can bluster on all you want about your misconceptions, but that does little to alter things. We have no reason to assume that a significant portion were NOT trying to find something other than the United States or the Americas, or perhaps you're one of those who think disambiguation pages have no purpose. And there's no reason to assume that some portion of the dead end links might have been looking for something other than the U.S. The only facts we have is that a number of viewers arrived at the disambiguation page. With the redirects in place, we can tell how many choose one of those two options. That gives a reasonable estimation of whether one topic is much more likely than any other topic. Out of the total, the number who don't choose either is an approximation of how many are not looking for either. Yes, there is inaccuracy in that approximation, but it does nonetheless give us an indication. If that number is very large, it is a reasonable indication that there might not be a primary topic based on the traffic. It might be possible to further refine the experiment to place redirects on every entry (or perhaps only on the top x number of entries). But unless you are assuming that a large portion of the people arriving at the disambiguation simply do not use it (i.e, that disambiguation pages serve no purpose), then there is no reason to assume that a significant portion of these viewers are no choosing one of the other options on the page. The point is, that by excluding that count, you are biasing the statistics. We don't know for certain what these viewers actually do when they get to the page, but we should not dismiss them entirely. older ≠ wiser 00:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately we don't have to assume either one, since the apples to apples test itself can yield useful (if not necessarily controlling) information. This is where your logic collapses: "Out of the total, the number who don't choose either is an approximation of how many are not looking for either." No, because it's not a "total" of link clicks. America page views =/= subsequent link clinks. Apples and oranges. And there's no honest need to lump them together. Yes, I stated earlier that I personally often backtrack or quickly retype a search when I hit a disambiguation page; others apparently agree that's likely a significant phenomenon since I'm not the one who coined the term "dead end" views. We have no idea how many dead end views there might be, but we can determine whether there's a significant difference between the top two redirect link clicks. As for bluster, you might be taken more seriously if you hadn't fled the (polite) questioning by me and sudoghost above about your "false positive" faceplant in your laughably pompous (and half projection filled) vote rationale above, or at least manned up and admitted that you were overeager in jumping the gun to blindly follow a sophistic Pied Piper. As it stands your screenname is only looking half accurate at best. VictorD7 (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Well it's become obvious that we will continue to disagree about this. older ≠ wiser 03:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you see my earlier post about it above? It's also interesting how America traffic seems to be declining from previous years (see July to July or January to January comparisons). One wonders if Wikipedia's arrangement itself is causing this decline as more and more people are becoming aware that searching for "America" only takes you to this disambiguation page. VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Speaking of ephemeral spikes, check out the bump for the Neil Diamond song on July fourth. Close to a tenfold increase. Suggests that maybe not everyone is always looking for what closed minds might expect. older ≠ wiser 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You mean the song named after the country that Neil Diamond sung on national tv this past July 4? A shallow mind might stop with that observation, but a deeper investigation shows that almost every item in at least the top third or so of the page got a July 4 bump (e.g. America, Limburg, Netherlands), bolstering the "curious click" traffic driving theory. The Americas article received about twice as large a bounce as the Neil Diamond song did, driven no doubt by info seeking on the nation through a variety of means, including (but not limited to) this page. VictorD7 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, so you're saying that a bump in traffic from readers looking for articles other than the U.S. actually means that they were looking for the U.S.? older ≠ wiser 00:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Though the holiday is an extreme and obvious example, do you believe that's the only day that the USA drives traffic to similarly worded but non-US oriented sites? VictorD7 (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm only talking about the 12 articles visible by clicking my link above. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, must have hit hide links and/or show redirects. Entirely agree.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well this looks suspicious. Americas (redirect) increased 132%(!) from July 13 to 16. Granted, the 13th was a Saturday (typically the slowest day), but the Americas article page only increased 36.8% over the same time period, and actually declined from the 15th to the 16th even as the redirect page increased another 9.5%. For comparison, the United States of America (redirect) increased 31% over the same time, and the US article page increased 19.5%, while both pages' slight decline from the 15th to the 16th fairly closely mirrored each other. In theory this test could have been great, and I hate to call shenanigans, but that 132% increase over the past couple of days is damn hard to explain. At this rate I wouldn't be shocked to see #Americasredirect signs on twitter before long. VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes of course. Always ready to make the most favorable interpretations that support your position and anything that runs counter to your bias is automatically suspect. Wonderful. older ≠ wiser 03:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope, I just think a 132% increase is suspicious given all the other numbers I cited. Apparently you don't, unless, of course, you're just engaging in another round of projection regarding the "bias" claptrap. VictorD7 (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • For an editor that feels the need to inform others that they "have no vested interest", you certainly do have an interest in frequently attacking those that disagree with your opinion. You point out something and everyone that disagrees with you is just closed minded, but if those that disagree with you point something out in turn, they are just biased? I don't think so. That others disagree with you does not mean they are any more biased than you would be, so please stop attacking others for having an opinion that differs from your own. - SudoGhost 09:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's a wee too early to draw conclusions one way or the other. There simply isn't enough data to make a statistically based conclusion. That being said if we start seeing consistent thousand plus daily hits on America than I would agree that something is very off, but we aren't there yet.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I fully agree, too early. VictorD7, I appreciate your support of the move but please, be very careful with how you phrase things. Not one of the people commenting here has demonstrated the slightest lapse in bad faith. I think a couple of your posts might look to them like disrespect, and I don't think the other editors are taking it well as it stands. Red Slash 07:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "Not one of the people commenting here has demonstrated the slightest lapse in bad faith." I wouldn't go that far. I think possibly all of the move supporters and several of the move opponents demonstrated good faith at times. Sorry, I couldn't resist. For the record I've only shown disrespect to those who exhibited it first, and I stand by everything I've said, phrasing and all. As for the test, I'm just noting it now to get it on the record right after the suspicious spike occurred, and I've already received notification indicating that I'm not the only one with the concerns expressed. Who knows? Maybe mentioning it now will discourage further hanky panky (if any has occurred) and lead to a less corrupt test. VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

More Comments

  • I agree that the 132% spike looks suspicious. This was what I worried might happen when I made my post that was later redacted.Readin (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If I understand correctly, there was talk of taking the number of click-throughs for "United States" and "the Americas" and dividing by the number of views for those pages. This would make sense if our criterion was how likely it was that a person looking for one of those pages would end up at the dab page (i.e. if we wanted to make a person looking for "the Americas" equally likely to end up on the dab page as someone looking for "United States"). However we should be trying to reduce the total number of people ending up on the dab page. The total number of click-throughs for each topic should be the criterion.Readin (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • VictorD7's observation about spikes in views for other "America" topics on July 4 should certainly supports the idea that the "United States" article is the primary topic. It should have been considered in the now-closed earlier discussion. Was there a similar spike on Columbus day? How strong was it compared to the July 4 spike?Readin (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    Your third point isn't actually true. It's likely the case that the extra people who viewed this page on July 4 were probably looking for United States. However, it's still possible that if we remove those extra people, we'd find that, on a daily basis, Americas is a more likely, or a comparably likely, target. Compare this to the football article; that article saw a spike on Super Bowl Sunday, but that doesn't mean American football is the primary topic of the term. -- tariqabjotu 03:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
But the July 4 example does illustrate the phenomenon in which a topic can drive traffic to similarly worded (in this case variations of "America") but different or even unrelated topics. On July 4 we saw a spike in USA article views and info seeking that obviously had spill over effects, but presumably that traffic driving isn't limited to one day. I don't think anyone is saying that most of the Americas page views on a regular day are people who started by searching for the USA, but a certain percentage likely are, which is something to keep in mind when interpreting evidence from Wikipedia itself. It's telling that July 4 saw by far the most America page views since the day after the 2012 US election (also a big day for the Americas page), and actually the most Americas page views since the stat page's records start in 2007 except for two huge single day spikes of over 10k on 9/16 2011 and 10/12 2010. I'm not sure about the significance of those days, though the Chilean miner rescue drama was unfolding during the latter and on 9/16 2011 Obama signed the "America Invents Act". Of course the biggest America page traffic days on record were the 10k plus surge on 1/18 2012 as the English Wikipedia protested proposed US internet laws and the day after the 2008 US election. VictorD7 (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "I agree that the 132% spike looks suspicious." That just got blown away by the new 256% increase. The Americas (redirect) page traffic certainly looks unusually volatile. VictorD7 (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe all these people are typing in "America" to get to "Americas"... From my pov I can easily imagine someone thinking of the 70s band America and just typing in "America", in which case they would probably rather deal with a disambig than a hatnote. So for people like me America (band) would be the nearest competitor, not "Americas" the landmass by a long shot! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Given how easy it turns out to be to manipulate page views, this sudden change in the Americas redirect going from being used half as often to much more often is a pretty unconvincing change. - SudoGhost 04:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"America" almost always refers to the USA in modern usage in English speaking nations, Europe generally, and around most of the world. The term is usually used to describe the entire hemisphere only in an historic sense (e.g. "Columbus discovered America.") that has long since been supplanted in contemporary descriptions by more specific language like "North/South/Central/Latin America", or by the broad "Americas". Google searches show virtually every use refers to the USA. In at least the first few pages of a Google books search there's only one example of a stand alone "America" referring to the hemisphere generally, and it was written in the 1880s. There are a couple of examples qualified by a "Latin" or "North", but stand alone "America" mentions almost invariably refer to the United States. A regular Google search yields similar results, as do searches of particular news sites like the BBC, which frequently use "America" synonymously with the United States of America. This is appropriate since the country actually has the word "America" in its name, its citizens are called "Americans", and "America" is often used as a short form name even by government sources.

Since the purpose of the disambiguation page is to facilitate users' arrival at the desired article, the most common uses are generally placed at the top. In fact "America" should probably redirect to the United States article given its overwhelming primacy, but at the very least the USA link should top this page. I propose either simply switching the two top category items, creating a new category for "The Americas" (possibly "Historically"), or putting it in "Other locations" (which wouldn't be so bad since there are currently only five entries listed). Other disambiguation pages often have historical subsections while placing the most common contemporary use on top (e.g. Britain or Egypt). Regardless, we shouldn't mislead people by pretending that English speakers use "America" to refer to the nation and the hemisphere at a roughly comparable rate. VictorD7 (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the section #Seriously above? How to you propose to deal with editors who refuse to even discuss the issue, and will edit war as a group to keep the status quo? - BilCat (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Continue to expose how untenable their position is, and hopefully sway more people to our side. I decided to start this new, more explicitly titled section after scanning the existing page and seeing that no one had any real counterarguments to points made by you and others. Besides, if several of us banded together how many irrational opponents would actually try to edit war with us? It looks like only two editors reverted you last time. I'd certainly support you this time. Perhaps others would as well. If they aren't willing to discuss the matter on the Talk Page then they're in the wrong from an edit warring standpoint, and we'd be justified in overcoming them with numbers and/or persistence. Maybe arbitration if it comes to that, but I'd prefer to settle it here. VictorD7 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
C'mon guys. We're talking about two consecutive entries that are listed in alphabetical order rather than the supposed (by you) order of their importance. Entries on disambiguation pages are usually listed in alphabetical order or chronological order or some order other than that of "primacy". Do you really want to fight about the order of the two entries following "usually refers to either"? Is either order likely to confuse readers or prevent them from finding the article they're seeking? Deor (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't oppose the change to follow common usage in English (not "importance"), and there won't be a fight. If it's really not a big an issue, as you claim, then you shouldn't care eithr way, and have no reason ot interest in opposing the change. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
What BilCat said. Also, most disambiguation pages are not completely in alphabetical order, especially when there are clear primary uses that dwarf the others. Some pages aren't in alphabetical order at all. In the examples I cited the Britain page isn't in alphabetical order until the subcategories start, there being 17 items listed in the topline section, apparently by usage, not alphabetically, more than the rest of the page combined, and on the Egypt page the modern nation is listed first followed by the "historical" links in chronological order, only switching to alphabetical order when it gets to "other placenames". Given the overwhelming usage disparity, there's no justification for this page not leading with the most commonly sought destination. VictorD7 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed; "it's alphabetical" is a poor reason at best, since that's not how the primary topic(s) of disambiguation pages are done. - SudoGhost 22:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the two topline items aren't in a subcategory the way the other items are, and the "usually" line prefacing them explicitly indicates that they're being listed there due to high usage, so not only are they not required to be in alphabetical order, but a reader would reasonably infer that they're in usage order. VictorD7 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
So far multiple editors have indicated support, and the lone dissenter essentially just argued that it's allegedly not a big deal. Are there any compelling, rational arguments against the change? If not we should make it soon. VictorD7 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur, but we could wait until the move discussion is complete to make the change. If the DAB page is moved and the current location redirected, then United States would be the clear primary topic, and placed at the top of the DAB page. - BilCat (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. VictorD7 (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reordered the list per the general concensus the the US is the primary topic. - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. As for the now closed discussion below, I see it as a success in a long process since the utter lack of any rational opposing argument was exposed, and the overwhelming primacy of "America" meaning the USA established. In fact it's possible that many of the drive by voters would have changed their votes or not bothered voting if they had read the full, subsequent discussion and had it to do over again, even aside from the clear canvassing and vote stacking that took place. For that reason I'd suggest that Red Slash take this issue up again in the near future, armed with the extra knowledge this discussion produced on the salient (fallacious) opposition rationales that can be preemptively addressed in the op next time, preferably while this is still fresh in people's minds. As to the admin decision, "sensitivity" to Latin Americans' alleged feelings isn't a legitimate reason, and seems to be a one way street. On the Spanish Wikipedia not only do "America" searches go straight to the continent page, but the USA isn't even mentioned on the "America" disambiguation page. Certainly sensitivity to the Taiwanese seems to have been disregarded in changing the PRC's title to "China" a while back, an extremely bitter and politically loaded subject. Alleged sensitivity has no place in these discussions, in part because Latin Americans aren't the only ones with feelings. The bottom line is that Latin American "America" usage is dwarfed by that of the rest of the world, who almost exclusively use it to mean the USA, and have for centuries. This isn't a trendy fad, and the USA's primacy isn't losing any real momentum, though unfortunately Wikipedia itself may be slightly altering societal usage (which it's not supposed to do), since the only non USA sites ranking high on a Google search for "America" are two Wikipedia pages. The external sites are all about the nation. Primacy is clear cut here.
As to this discussion, no real opposition was even presented, despite ample opportunity given, so let me know if you notice anyone trying to revert the proper change you made. VictorD7 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
As I imagine you're aware, the English Wikipedia has a duty to be a bit more international than the other Wikipedias. While readers of the Spanish Wikipedia are almost exclusively native speakers of Spanish from the Hispanosphere, the English Wikipedia attracts readers from all of the world from inside and outside the Anglosphere with a variety of perspectives and interests. So, we, more so than the Spanish Wikipedia, need to be mindful of how terms vary in use in our language in different parts of the world.
Sensitivity should not be the primary objective at all, of course, as there are many of points to consider. I didn't feel it was demonstrated that there was a compelling reason to make this move; it doesn't seem like a big deal either way, as if keeping this page here is bulwarking droves of people or out of touch with near-unanimous global usage. As far as I understand it, China is globally used in English almost exclusively to refer to the People's Republic of China, even among Taiwanese sources. And to your example, there are counter examples (Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland, Palestine vs. State of Palestine and Palestinian territories) that face the same problem, and generally, in the absence of compelling reasons to change, the preference has been for historical usage. There, of course, is the possibility that the configurations of those pages, and this page, will change in the future, but, at present, no pressing need for a change has been demonstrated.
I feel you vastly overestimate how this configuration affects page rankings on external sites, as this page receives very few views in comparison to the views of the United States and Americas articles. With that in mind, I don't see any reason for you to turn this into a crusade. I would not be surprised if this move is re-suggested in a year's time or so, but the tenor of your comment here suggests you're taking this too seriously; Wikipedia is not about winning. -- tariqabjotu 21:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
While I'm not sure about the policy basis for the English Wikipedia supposedly having a "duty to be a bit more international" than other Wikipedias (sounds like an outrageous double standard), nothing you said changes the fact that "America" primarily refers to the USA internationally (rendering the alleged duty irrelevant in this case), just as "China" now almost always refers to the PRC when an English speaking audience is targeted, though "America" as USA has a lot longer track record than the China/PRC case. Your other examples are relatively recent political disputes and changes that don't really bear on this case. The existence of a "Palestinian state" is hotly disputed. The existence of the USA isn't. Even the Irish split is less than a century old, the island nation itself having many more centuries of history than a never remotely unified 1492-1776 Americas. That's why Ireland is an in-depth article in its own right while America is just a disambiguation page. "America" as the USA is an historical use as well as a contemporary one, while "America" as landmass is mostly just historical. I said Wikipedia (not just this page's setup) might be "slightly" impacting usage (vastly overestimating?) based on internal traffic changes in recent years and the fact that the only high ranking non-US oriented page to pop up on a Google search is the Wikipedia Americas article (even the band is named after the country), though it hasn't affected the USA's primacy.
"Sensitivity" to Latin Americans was the chief reason you cited for blocking this move. That's incredibly weak. Apart from the fact that it declined to show sensitivity to Americans and other non-Latin Americans, there was no reason to get into "native" versus "non-native" speakers or to single out any geopolitical region. What matters is usage period, and the discussion's scope was global. I sense you vastly overestimate both Latin America's size and its people's slighted feelings if this English redirect takes place. The US and Canada together are about the same geographical size as all of Latin America combined, and the latter's total population only represents about 8% of the human race. Most of these people use the Spanish or Portuguese Wikipedia if anything. As you concede, among the other 92% of the world's population (and therefore the entire world) the USA usage is primary. There wasn't even any real evidence presented here about how Latin Americans would feel. To my knowledge no Latin American nation calls itself "America" or uses the national demonym "American", so if sensitivity is to be considered at all US citizens inherently have more invested in this as it strikes to the heart of their identity in a way it doesn't for any other people.
I appreciate your honesty in saying that you don't feel this issue is a big deal, though one has to wonder why you took the case then. It was certainly extensively argued and therefore deserved a serious hearing. Just because it accounts for a small percentage of the traffic to the US and Americas pages doesn't make this dispute irrelevant, particularly since those are two heavily viewed articles (especially the US page). We're still talking about tens of thousands of views a month, and even if it was just a few people it's better to have a logical setup that's consistent with guidelines than to not have one. Your "Wikipedia is not about winning" remark was unnecessary and condescending (besides, my own proposal did "win"). My only "crusade" is to help make Wikipedia suck a little less than most people justifiably see it as sucking. This is a classic example of why that sentiment exists, where in my opinion (and I can back it up with quotes and evidence if you want to dispute me) discussions on this page have brought out entrenched ignorance, anti-American bigotry, and various types of unscrupulous behavior by elements of the move opposition. I didn't launch the move request below and I wasn't planning on starting a new one, though I see no reason to wait an entire year before someone does, given how one sided the rational, evidence based portion of the discussion was, and if someone does I'd be happy to jump in and participate again. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic but for clarification, it wasn't the Taiwanese who were upset about the PRC article being renamed to "China". It was the Chinese. The Taiwanese generally say Taiwan is Taiwan and China is China - two separate countries. However the Chinese (both those who live in China and especially those who immigrated to Taiwan after WWII and were given administrative powers by the Allies when the Japanese left) say Taiwan is part of China and is split from the PRC by an unresolved civil war. It was the Chinese who wanted to continue using People's Republic of China and the anachronistic and misleading "Republic of China" rather than "China" and "Taiwan". The issue was decided based on English usage, not based on the usage by the people's of those two countries. Readin (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Taiwan's official name is still "Republic of China" and it held the UN Security Council's "China" seat until the 1970s, but it's true that there are nuances involved in the issue, and that primary English usage is what matters here, or at least what should matter. VictorD7 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I too thought the importance of South American readers was overstated. The English Wikipedia's obligation isn't to be more "international", it is to serve people using English (regardless of where they live). Even leaving aside the argument about what English is (is it defined by native speakers or by anyone who tries to use it no matter how badly, or by something in between?), the use of English even as a second language in South America is limited. Even those few people who know English well enough to read a Wikipedia article aren't necessarily using English when looking things up on Wikipedia. And what percentage of those aren't even natives of South America but rather transplants who came from English-speaking countries or who are involved in international business because of their knowledge of English - and not being natives of South America don't share the bias of the South Americans? Readin (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
If you feel I closed the move improperly, there's move review. Otherwise, and regardless, I believe it's time to move on. -- tariqabjotu 23:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closing statement: There was a lot to consider here. I've been generally following the discussion over the past couple weeks, although I haven't looked at the blow-by-blow of every back-and-forth exchange. Nevertheless, a few major points seem to stick out.

First, let me start with points that are completely irrelevant:

  • The United States is not the only America (disregarded because the continued existence of a disambiguation page acknowledges that)
  • Many U.S.-based organizations use the term "America" (disregarded because this is self-referential)
  • It's obnoxious that many Americans have co-opted the term "America" for themselves (disregarded because the motivations behind popular use are irrelevant)
  • We inconvenience people by pointing them to an article they don't want (disregarded because this disambiguation page is a page no one wants)

Now, to the more substantive points. There has been a lot of discussion about what is understandably perceived as the central question: in aggregate, among all the people who happen upon this page or who search for the term "America", what are people looking for? I feel that the consensus was as follows:

  • In aggregate, more people hitting this disambiguation page are looking for United States than for the Americas, and far more people are looking for either of these topics than anything else.

This seems supported by the brief experiment last week. I would have preferred to have had this week's data to clarify things: I had no intention of disregarding this week's data; I just needed to close the discussion about the stats and say to disregard them in the hope that any tampering would stop. As our luck would have it though, the Stats tool has been down since July 23. Nevertheless, given the July 21-22 data and a sensible disregard for obviously ridiculous spikes from last week, I'm willing to conclude that more are looking for the U.S. by a ratio of maybe 1.6-1.8:1. And I'm not sure how the "curious click theory" figures into that.

Most people acknowledged this point, but there was significant debate over whether this primacy among the aggregate is to the degree desired byWP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That's entirely subjective, so we'd mostly come down to a numbers game. Unfortunately, considering the notifications referenced here and perusing the WikiProject involvement of commenters, I am concerned that we have more people subjectively opposing than we otherwise would have without the notifications. However, we see that, on a daily basis, we would have a couple hundred clicking through to either the United States article or the Americas article individually. This isn't a whole lot of people, and so we are neither inconveniencing nor conveniencing a whole lot of people either way this RM closes. And, for that reason, we need not concern ourselves too much with the numbers game and, thus, how the notifications affect that.

Instead, I'll move onto another major point, which got a lot of intention and which I believe is far more important. And that point is primacy in different regions. Despite the large amount of debate here, there seems to be a general agreement about the following points:

  • Among people from the United States, those searching for "America" are nearly always searching for information about the United States.
  • Among people in the Anglosphere but outside the United States, those searching for "America" are more likely to be looking for information on the United States than on the Americas. However, there is a significant number who would be looking for the Americas.
  • Among people from Latin America, those searching for "America" are about as likely, and perhaps more likely, to be looking for information on the Americas as they are to be looking for information on the United States.

All of this seems to be supported by uses of the term "America" in sources (non-U.S. sources included), as well as through anecdotal evidence [despite Rob's insistence otherwise about the second point].

Very little discussion was made about one last point, but in the very few places where it was brought up, there seems to be agreement and a good chance that:

  • Among people outside the Anglosphere outside Latin America, those searching for "America" are more likely to be looking for information on the United States. In some areas of the world, they are far more likely to be looking for information on the United States.

This was most prominently noted by the use of "America" in other languages to refer to the United States.

So, given all this information, it seems clear that about the only holdout on primacy is Latin America, where evidence suggests a bit of sensitivity about the use of the term "America" to describe just the United States. With agreement on these points, essentially we get a geographic issue. Does "America" need to have primacy everywhere for this move to be done? Are we only concerned about how the term in used by people in the Anglosphere? By native speakers? By those looking for English wherever they may be?

Unfortunately, guidance on this is not exceptionally clear. (Perhaps the closest equivalent is the Ireland / Republic of Ireland quandry, which has ultimately had the historical island usage take precedence of the contemporary, and potentially politically sensitive, usage for the country.) For better or for worse, the English Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, used by people all over the world, all over the Anglosphere and outside the Anglosphere, native speakers and non-native speakers. The number of people who reach the United States article via this disambiguation page is very small, less than one percent all visitors to that article. (This compares to about four percent of those ending up at Americas coming from this disambiguation page.) So, is this change really necessary? Would it really help many people? As I said, while we're not inconveniencing too many people with this move, we're not conveniencing too many either. So, is it worth the potential confusion and slight we may cause Latin Americans (and some others, as noted here)? Or breaking up the Google sitelinks (pointing people directly to the most common articles entitled "America") most people get when this disambiguation page appears at the top of search results?

It seems like the answer to these questions should be no, but at least based on the discussion below, it certainly isn't yes yet. So, I'm going to have to close this move request as no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 09:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

America → America (disambiguation) AND redirect America to United States – In common usage in English, the word America most commonly refers to the United States and therefore this page should redirect there. Statistics to back up this point include:

  • Page view statistics for America, the disambiguation page: 75723 over the past 90 days, a number that is incredibly high for a disambiguation page that (ideally) nothing is linking to.
  • For the landmass, the title Americas already exists and is not going anywhere and is perfectly unambiguous and natural. It boasts 415497 views. That's nothing to sneeze at.
  • However, America most commonly refers to the United States. In the same timeframe that article has received 3627820 page views. Clearly we are dealing with an article that more readers are looking for in general. But how many of them put in "America" to do so? I'm glad you asked.

For starters, 75723 readers reached this disambiguation page over 90 days. high numbers such as that are generally seen as an indication that they are expecting to reach a specific topic there. Somehow I doubt that 75723 readers were hoping to hit a disambiguation page. I present the following evidence to support my assertion of a primary topic for "America": the following Google News search of the BBC's website. (The BBC is a British news/entertainment company, therefore presumably a bit more immune to any suspected pro-U.S. bias.) I removed "Latin America", "South America" and "North America" from consideration, because (for example) nobody would expect to reach "Latin America" by putting in "America". Guess how many uses of "America" refer specifically to the United States? No, seriously, guess. Did you guess 100%? Guess what happens when you search Reuters or other news sources? In almost (not quite all) any context, "America" means the United States. (I found - eventually - one other use... for Club América and one for the Copa América, both caused by the BBC disliking diacritical marks!)

See also the semi-recent move of People of the United States to Americans in 2011 here; it might help inform your arguments, although it's definitely a bit different. America should redirect directly to the country's article because that's what readers mean when they search for it in English. Thank you for your time, and God bless America. (And the rest of the world, too! smile) --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 18:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Red Slash 20:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: Reopened after originally being closed on 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 18:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - For reasons given, though we still need to tweak the disambiguation page arrangement either way. VictorD7 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests using incoming links, traffic stats, and Google rankings to determine which topic "highly likely...to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". The top results on Google and Bing all refer directly or indirectly to the United States. Kauffner (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose To pull the words from someone in a past debate concerning this page, 'United States of America' may be prevalent but it is not the only 'America'. Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias treat this title as ambiguous. Nigthw made a rather compelling argument in a past requested move, here are the examples wherein it's shown to be an ambiguous title:
  • 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.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This attempt to overwhelm by showing a bunch of dictionaries is severely weakened by the fact that you've had to resort to duplicates (Oxford is used about 5 times) and by the fact that many of your examples actually have America rather than the Americas as the primary topic. Readin (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Our guidelines do not suggest consulting dictionaries or other encyclopedias when determining a primary topic. Since they are free to use the same title for multiple articles, the primary topic issue doesn't really arise for them. Britannica used to have a "featured entry", but I don't see that anymore. Kauffner (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless you're completely ignoring all the evidence and arguments presented, it's only "ambiguous" in the sense that multiple definitions exist, which is true of every primary topic with a disambiguation page (including Rome and the other examples people keep citing to you), which is why a disambiguation page would still exist. You would be hard pressed to find many words that don't have multiple dictionary definitions. That says nothing about usage primacy, which is why the pertinent Wikipedia policy page doesn't mention dictionaries. VictorD7 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thus far, other than my list of sources that shown ambiguity, I can't say that I feel a broad or convincing source list has been shown. The reason being, the number of organizations and geographical areas that employ America as part of their proper name makes conclusive source stats comparison rather problematic. For instance, false hits that appear the first two pages of the BBC list in the request include ‘Recording Industry Association of America’, America's Cup, ‘New America Foundation’ and three for ‘Copa America’. The page views argument might have been successful if one could show that people click on United States disproportionately; the only way to do that is for the United States link on the page to in fact me a redirect, not a link, to United States so that transit could be measured against the page views.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Guess which country the Recording Industry Association of America is located in (and focuses on), Labattblueboy. The America's Cup was named after America (yacht). Do I need to tell you which country the boat's owners and operators came from? Or what country the New America Foundation works in? All those give evidence for the move proposal. Oh, and guess whether Copa America's an English name using English words. (If you're arguing that Copa America itself is competing with the U.S. for the primary topic, well, it has ~6800 views in the past 90 days.) Red Slash 21:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The names I mentioned are entirely different subjects with each their own article. Other than the curious fact or the origins of their name, they have no relation to this conversation except to show a lot of false positives based on the current search results. The search results simply showed the word America is applied to many things that are not the state known as the United States, not that United States is the primary topic of America.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "False hits"? In most cases we aren't counting mentions for "America", but just inviting people to peruse through the results and see that virtually every standalone "America" is referring to the US. This involves bypassing the terms with qualifiers like "North", South", "Latin", etc.. As Red Slash pointed out, even the narrower so called "false hits" you listed are based in or about the USA, further proving the point. You've still failed to address the point about every primary topic with a disambiguation page having multiple dictionary definitions, rendering your dictionary argument invalid for the purposes of gauging primacy. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • On what basis are dictionaries invalid as sources? Given we are here, in some respects, debating the definition of a term it would seem most suitable to use them as a source. Dictionaries certainly aren’t invalid as a source to judge primacy as they do provide descriptive definitions listed in order of importance or linguistic usage. I would also argue that since dictionaries are scholarship productions they are likely a better list than either Google hits or most news articles in terms of acceptable reliable sources in determining the primary topic (WP:RELY), which is in this came ambigous.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Appreciate the catch Sudo, intent had not been to double post given it overwrote a previous comment of my own. It appears that VictorD7 corrected that, so all is well. Whether the source is secondary or tertiary wasn't so much a concern as whether the source was scholarly or not, or rather a quality reliable source or not. I found your comment about dictionary position of definitions interesting and it is apparently done primarily in one of two methods; historical order or commonality of usage.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I said your argument was invalid, since it could be applied to any primary topic with a disambiguation page, all of which have multiple definitions. If dictionary "scholarship" was adequate for judging primacy then the policy pages would have mentioned it instead of the various online search tools. Besides, your own list shows the order all over the place. I earlier linked to a dictionary listing Harold Rome (composer) first in the "Rome" entry. I also listed several dictionaries showing the USA as the #1 meaning of "America". Unlike your cherry-picked list (which included multiple obscure works I'm not sure I've ever heard of), mine simply linked to the widely used free online dictionary site and featured all four references listed on the page. If dictionaries are to be judged on how accurately their ranking reflects usage frequency, then the mountains of evidence piling up show that the few you listed ranking the landmass first are shoddy or out of date at best, while the ones both of us listed ranking the USA first are more accurate. We haven't just used regular google searches, but searches of books and major news hubs around the world that serve as great barometers of societal usage. They all say the same thing, that "America" is almost always synonymous with the USA, with the much rarer landmass sense almost entirely restricted to historical contexts. It's not even close. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You may find my argument disagreeable but its certainly not invalid. The fact that the dictionary entries are all over the place is why I consider the term ambiguous. Search results that removes false positives and leaves consistent true positives is what is really required to convincingly support this requested move. False positives being any example wherein the United States and America can't be used interchangeably without changing the meaning of the results (America First Credit Union ≠ United States First Credit Union, America Got Talent ≠ United States Got Talent) and true positives being examples where they could be used interchangeably (ex: Toledo, America = Toledo, United States) I personally don't think that's something that's achievable because, as I noted earlier, too many proper names employ America in them and why the ambiguity argument is not going away. The broad search examples have thus far been limited and not terribly supportive of the move. The search by Red Slash contained many false positives; that by WheelerRob showed examples where in the term America related to the continent. Neither really aided the case for a move. If you have better search results to post them below and we can discuss.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I said it's invalid because it could be applied to any disambiguation page with a primary topic, as they all have multiple, legitimate definitions by definition, so it would only be valid against the USA here if you were more broadly arguing against any disambiguation page having a primary topic. As to order, which presumably wasn't the heart of your original contention since you listed several featuring the US as the top meaning, dictionaries don't necessarily rank by usage frequency, which is what Wikipedia calls on us to determine primacy by, explicitly citing tools like google search results (but not dictionaries) to do so. Your "false positive" argument doesn't make any sense since no such counts were provided, and even if they had been the proper name examples refer to the US and therefore aren't "false". If you want to disregard them though then just exclude them when you peruse the various search results provided and only look at the totally unqualified, stand alone "America" mentions, determining whether they're talking about the nation or something else. So far move supporters have relied on respondents' good faith to do so on their own and reply about it honestly, but I'm to the point now where I might go ahead and post a bunch of examples at the bottom of this discussion to underscore the almost total lack of counterexamples for the benefit of those not bothering to click on the links. As for WheelerRob's search link, did you actually read it? As I replied to him below, the first page contained only two modern, contemporary context landmass references: one from a Spanish based site called Classora and the other an absurd satirical post on wronganswers.com that also lists Madagascar and Hawaii as continents, and observes that they "have no emotions". The second page didn't help him either, so those results were a bust that only strengthened our argument.VictorD7 (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Kauffner: Labattblueboy is correct. In addition, editors are not limited to suggestions made in Wikipedia guidelines. This sort of decisions in Wikipedia are made based on its policies, and an applicable Wikipedia policy here is WP:IAR. As such, Labattblueboy's dictionary list above, is appropriate and even central to this discussion. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • Labattblueboy is incorrect for the reasons clearly explained multiple times and left unaddressed. At least simply invoking Ignore All Rules would represent a somewhat legitimate rationale, that is if you bothered to explain how treating the USA differently than other (often less) primary topics elsewhere (that are rightly redirect targets) would improve the article, which you haven't. VictorD7 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Dictionaies are language scholars' written testament for reflecting conventional use of the English language. So, there is no doubt they are important and, in recognition of this, many editors in this discussion have already supported Labattblueboy's convincing work above. Your invitation to explain how treating the USA differently than others is, well, an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF and, thus, inconsequential to this discussion. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • No, you linked to the wrong page. This one (WP:OSE) is more pertinent since I've been discussing Wikipedia policy and made a perfectly valid precedent mention. "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." You again failed to address the fact that multiple dictionary definitions exist for every primary topic with a disambiguation page, clearly demonstrating that the existence of multiple definitions is an invalid argument against primary designation, or to explain why we should continue treating this topic differently from others. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me. Stay on the subject under discussion and don't take the liberty to put words on my mouth, as in correcting what I linked. What I linked is what I linked and what I intended to link. Period. So limit yourself to your own comments and don't second guess what mine are: I will articulate my own. In any event, for the benefit of the closing admin, I point out that WP:OSE is just an essay, and not authoritative here. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • I didn't question your intention, but just pointed out that you were wrong. Your link (which is an "essay" too) had nothing to do with what I had said, so my "essay" was more pertinent. Speaking of staying on topic, you still haven't explained how invoking IAR in this case to justify the continuing break from policy and standard practice improves Wikipedia. VictorD7 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually Wikipedia policy points out that tertiary sources such as dictionaries and encyclopedias should be relied on less than secondary sources. These few tertiary sources are the only thing that would even begin to support an argument of ambiguity (and then only by drawing a conclusion from the encyclopedias that the encyclopedias themselves do not present) and secondary sources, which have more weight on Wikipedia, overwhelmingly support the fact that America overwhelmingly refers to the United States. It's also not an example WP:OTHERSTUFF to suggest that we should be consistent in the implementation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially when both they and reliable sources support the fact that the United States is overwhelmingly the primary topic for the subject. - SudoGhost 22:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The word "encyclopedias" is found in the links you provided, but the word "dictionaries" or anything from its root is not found, and dictionaries is what is being disscussed here. As such, there is no such policy against dictionaries as you are claiming. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC), and I approce this message.
  • Support. Clear primary topic. It is not the primary meaning, but it clearly is the primary topic. Apteva (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • What? That argument doesn't make any sense, since meaning is the purpose or significance of a subject. I am pretty sure you mean to say that it's the primary meaning but somehow should not be the primary topic. Clarification?--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Perhaps "primary meaning", in Apteva's mind, is "most important meaning". "Primary topic" means "most likely to be what the reader is looking or searching for". Obviously the Americas as a whole (which include the U.S.) are much more important that just this one country, but it doesn't mean there's no primary topic. Red Slash 04:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Labattblueboy. The country is located at United States and should remain there. There's no need to move the disambiguation page, since Columbus did not discover the United States, he discovered America. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Columbus discovered neither the United States nor America - since neither the US nor America existed yet; what Columbus did discover was the Western Hemisphere. The land now known as the United States -- and confusingly called "America" by some -- was discovered by the governor of Puerto Rico Juan Ponce de Leon. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Did the people already living there never discover it? Or do you mean the first discovery after the invention of the printing press? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Any reasonably common term has more than one meaning. That's even more true if shifting the context to something that happened centuries ago is fair game. Perhaps Rome should be a DAB page too. Kauffner (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. We don't eat "turkey (bird)", we eat "turkey", which nevertheless leads to the country's article. Both my suggestion and yours are legitimate minority uses of the terms in question - but what's the primary use for them? (Also, nobody has to my knowledge suggested moving the United States article. America, as proposed, would be a redirect.) Red Slash 04:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - United States is overwhelmingly the primary topic for the subject in the English language. That America has other possible meanings does not refute this, that's what the disambiguation page is for. Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias do not hold more weight than the overwhelming use of "America" in secondary sources to refer to the United States, since tertiary sources are not given as much weight as secondary sources per Wikipedia policy. - SudoGhost 05:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons stated above by User:Red Slash, also because the move fits with the criteria stated in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it has been shown (above) -- the most recognizable usage of 'America' is as a synonym for the United States. I have to agree that secondary sources outweigh tertiary sources. Finally, the United States article is the most likely topic sought when the term "America" is used. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the use of the United States as the primary topic. In the English speaking world outside of North America, it refers to not just North America but both Americas, particularly in UK usage but also in Continental English. I'm Canadian, and am quite used to people - even Brits - speaking of going to Toronto or Vancouver as "going to America". As a generic for the US, worldwide the more common is to say "the US" or "the United States".....bit different for "American" of course. I have my doubts about the validity of google results that do not separate US sources from other English sources.Skookum1 (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Secondary reliable sources overwhelmingly support United States as the primary topic, anecdotal evidence doesn't factor into that, and why would US sources need to be separated? While non-US sources would certainly help establish the United States as the primary topic (and they do, see above) this is the English Wikipedia and it is English language sources that are used to determine the primary topic. What matters is what do English speakers typically mean when they say "America", there is no stipulation for geopolitcal boundaries in determining that. - SudoGhost 07:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Skookum1, the Google News results I showed were searches of a British website and not one used "America" to refer to Canada. I don't see any sources coming from you to support your assertions about usage in English, though you do definitely have my condolences for having to deal with people once again confusing Canada with the USA. Red Slash 08:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - the overwhelming majority of people entering America into the search bar are looking for the United States. Those few searching for America Ferrera can be sent to the disambiguation page. The most useful encyclopaedia sends readers to what they want to read about as quickly as possible. WilyD 08:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: for a redirect, it should be very clearly the primary topic, not a primary topic by a narrow margin, or according to location of the speaker. Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The United States is overwhelmingly the primary topic, not "by a narrow margin" even if you take into account tertiary sources (which do not have as much weight on Wikipedia), nor does the location of the speaker change this fact. If you disagree, you are welcome to provide reliable sources in English that show otherwise. - SudoGhost 22:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't care if most people use the term to refer to the USA like the people supporting the move claim, attributing it to the country is inaccurate as it's not its official name. It's one thing to include the US in the disambiguation page, but to make America redirect to its article is to imply that it's the country's real name, which it's not. And the article about the country doesn't even include the word in its title. - 186.124.178.12 (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "Real name(s)" are irrelevant. Article titles are based on common usage, not official names. The nation's official name is the United States of America and appears at the beginning of the article's first body line. Above there's a "see also" for "America" because "America" is an extremely common designation for the USA, though that doesn't help those trying to reach the US page by searching for its common name "America". Searches for the full name redirect to the United States and so should the searches for "America" (we can add a link back to a disambiguation page for the much rarer uses). Virtually 100% of English speaking contemporary context "America" mentions refer to the US, and the USA article receives more traffic than the rest of the disambiguation items combined, so this is as about as clear cut a case of primary usage as there is. VictorD7 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support it's the primary topic for English language speakers, and this is an English language encyclopedia. Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a citizen of the United States of America, I am aware that we are not the only "Americans." This is right-wing, politically-motivated patriotic jingoism at its worst. (Note tone of conclusory statement of nominator should you dispute this) Disambiguation allows for people to consider other alternatives, including the North American continent and the bulk of the entire Western Hemisphere. Montanabw(talk) 17:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation will still exist. It just doesn't need to be the first page that pops up. The change will recognize the fact that all the overwhelming evidence presented shows "America" is primarily used to refer to the USA. This has nothing to do with politics (except insofar as you want to inject them yourself). We just need to bring the current setup in line with reality and Wikipedia policy. BTW, even Canadians properly use the demonym "Americans" to describe US citizens. Spanish speaking practice isn't relevant here as this is just the English Wikipedia, but it should be noted that even most of the non English speaking world uses "America" or variations thereof to refer to the US, along with the proper demonym. VictorD7 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Montanabw. I'm pretty sure that your comment disregards WP:UCN as well as WP:NPA. Red Slash 07:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - It is the clear primary topic for English speakers worldwide, not just US-Americans, who often use "the States" more than "America". Such is generally not the case in other English speaking countries, except for Canada and perhaps the UK, and non-US English speakers are a large percentage of English WP's readership. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's fine the way it is, and "America" does often refer to the "The Americas." -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
  • Do you have a policy or guideline-based rationale for opposing the move? That America sometimes refers to "The Americas" is not being questioned, but when English-language reliable sources (and readers looking for an article) use the word America, they are overwhelmingly referring to the United States, which makes it the primary topic and more than justifies the move. That America refers to other things is why there is a disambiguation page, but that disambiguation page exists does not mean a page should not point to a primary topic. What reason do you have for opposing it other than "it's fine the way it is"? - SudoGhost 03:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment—As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is." Labattblueboy has demonstrated that the term "America" is commonly used to mean other things, especially The Americas. There is no "consensus determin[ing] which article, if either, is the primary topic" and in fact, there is a great deal of disagreement, not just my own. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
  • Merely disagreeing does not create a lack of consensus. There is overwhelming evidence that the United States is not only the primary topic for the subject, but also that the United States is the topic readers are looking for when searching for "America". Lack of "absolute rules" does not mean there can be no primary topic, which is what you seem to be suggesting (especially because the lack of "absolute rules" is not limited to that page, but there needs to be a reason other than "I disagree"). That "Labattblueboy has demonstrated that the term America is commonly used to mean other things" doesn't have anything to do with the RM; nobody is questioning that America means different things, and that fact does not mean a primary topic does not exist, especially when a single topic is overwhelmingly the primary topic. Your own personal disagreement doesn't factor into a move the way reliable sources do; do you have any evidence that the United States is not the primary topic? - SudoGhost 05:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - United States has the most interlanguage links of all articles. The following languages have their main article residing at a one-word title corresponding to "America": Amharic, Egyptian Arabic, Hausa, Lojban, Luganda, Pennsylvania Dutch, Punjabi, Somali, Swahili, Volapuk, Zulu. These are mostly the African languages, besides a couple of artificially constructed ones, and Pennsylvania Dutch and Punjabi. It's probably fair to say that most of the 75K hits in 90 days are indeed readers looking for "United States" and not this disambig. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I am leaning toward support; your arguments are certainly more logical. My only reservations are because I know the issue is particularly sensitive for many Canadians, and it might do to keep it as is just for that reason. Of course, the rest of the world has always usually understood 'America' as "the United States", even when it was half the size (see Alexis de Tocqueville), and, if we are to believe America (West Side Story song) is authentic, even in San Juan, around where Columbus did his discovering. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Good points. I'd address the sensitivity issue by observing that many Americans justifiably feel slighted by being singled out for negative discrimination. Underlying anti-American bigotry has even seeped out into the open on this Talk Page, like with the "ugly american" comment above, or Rob's accusation in this section that Americans are "steal(ing)" the name of a continent because they couldn't come up with a name on their own, when it's actually just been linguistic evolution over the centuries around the world, not just in the US. Rather than making a utilitarian argument based on population size, I'll just recommend that, when in doubt, if there's potential for sore feelings either way, it's best to drop that as a consideration and fall back onto more objective guidance like policy and standard practice.VictorD7 (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No evidence given to suggest that a primary topic exists, and Labattblueboy's list is sufficient evidence to suggest that there isn't one. What other language versions of Wikipedia do is of no relevance to us. Osiris (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Overwhelming evidence given includes multiple types of Google searches showing the term "America" always refers to the US, except for the occasional historical usage. The Primary Topic guidelines emphasize using such search statistics to establish usage primacy, but don't mention dictionaries. The dictionaries only show that multiple uses exist, which no one disputes and which is why a disambiguation page would still exist (as it does for Egypt, which goes directly to the modern nation before linking back to a disambiguation page containing the relatively frequently used historical and other senses). Multiple definitions typically exist for primary topics. Labattblueboy's list is irrelevant to establishing frequency of common usage, and tertiary sources (other encyclopedias, dictionaries) are typically frowned upon for use in general by Wikipedia, at least compared to secondary sources. The latter not only demonstrate it's the primary use, but that "America" refers to the US in contemporary contexts around 100% of the time. We're also talking about a USA page that receives more traffic than the rest of the disambiguated items combined, underscoring the absurdity of pretending these are only marginal differences. Over the past 90 days it has received 3.649 million visits compared to only 422k for Americas. Contrast that with Egypt, where the modern nation article received 760,119 visits versus 426,657 for Ancient Egypt, less than double despite the country's ongoing news prominence, and yet it's the primary topic. The current setup is misleading and inconsistent with standard Wikipedia practice. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: It is overwhelmingly more likely that English-speaking people searching for "America" are intending to learn about the country, not the landmass. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not going to repeat things I've said previously on this page; Labattblueboy's citations above are evidence enough for me. Google hits are, to my mind, a poor metric of actual usage, especially lacking in chronological depth. Deor (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The dictionary argument is invalid. Every primary topic with a disambiguation page has multiple definitions in dictionaries. This entry for Rome even lists composer Harold Rome before the city. There are reasons the pertinent policy page mentions Google searches and not dictionaries or other encyclopedias. The former represent actual usage, imperfectly perhaps but vastly better than obscurity celebrating dictionaries. VictorD7 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Question. I am coming somewhat late into this debate, and have a question: Why is this nomination nominating to move America → America (disambiguation), when America is already redirecting to America (disambiguation) as shown by the presence of the Disambiguation template at the bottom of the America article? (For evidence of this see the bottom of the America page HERE, or simply check the bottom of America article HERE where the Categories area lists it as a member of the Disambiguation pages Category, or just type "America (disambiguation)" in the Search box which you will see will bring you to the article associated with this Talk page here.)
As a follow up question #2: The nomination entry above ("America → America (disambiguation) – In common usage in English, the word America most commonly refers to the United States and therefore this page should redirect there.") does not appear to make sense: the nominator is asking to move America → America (disambiguation), however, he also seems to be nominating to move America → United States ("...the word America most commonly refers to the United States and therefore this page should redirect there [to United States].") So what exactly is he nominating, America → America (disambiguation) OR America → United States ???? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Your description of the current state of affairs seems to be all muddled up... the disambig page currently resides at America, the title America (disambiguation) is currently the redirect, and the proposal is to let this disambig page reside at the latter, while redirecting the former to United States. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
"The former", "the latter", "the current", the God knows what! Why can't people you use exact, rather than relative, terms? You were able to unambiguously assess my description as being "all muddled up" weren't you? And I bet that wasn't because I wrote in confusing relative terms, was it? When people are all debating about a disambiguation page - something that's used to resolve possible ambiguity - additional relative terms that potentially add more ambiguity is that last thing we need here. Oh Lord! My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Til Eulenspiegel's description seems to be both concise and accurate while both of your comments indicate some significant confusion. older ≠ wiser 13:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Most thoughts tend to be both concise and accurate...once you are have developed some expertise in the subject. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Most thoughts tend to be both concise and accurate...once you are have developed some expertise in the subject. I don't think this is a true statement. Expertise in a subject area does not equate to the ability to think or communicate concisely and accurately. In fact, it can often lead to rambling digressions and minutiae or, worse, to unintelligible jargon (to the uninitiated). Now the basic move proposed is clear America → America (disambiguation). The rationale does perhaps uses some infelicitous phrasing: therefore this page should redirect there. However, Til Eulenspiegel's explanation seems quite straightforward. older ≠ wiser 19:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
She seems to be confusing two entirely different processes, "Redirect" and "Move". This proposal involves "Redirecting" (not moving) America -> United States, while involves "Moving" (not redirecting) the GFDL currently at America -> America (disambiguation). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks Til Eulenspiegel! Finally someone is communicating! "Thinkers think and doers do. But until the thinkers do and the doers think, progress will be just another word in the already overburdened vocabulary of the talkers who talk." - Unknown author. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • Support: Compelling evidence above shows that United States of America is the primary topic and this dab page is most likely getting in users' way. The alternate hypothesis (Labattblueboy's list) seems tendentious, e.g. suggesting that people type "America" when searching for Amerigo Vespucci. This is not about how "important" the United States is compared to other nations, nor will moving this page consist of submission to Yankee imperialism. It's about Wikipedia users, period. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 04:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Although this may save readers time, it's simply wrong. 'America' is the name of a continent whereas it's a colloquial name for a country. To all people from the USA, it's not the Worlds fault that you couldn't come up with a name for your own Country and Nationality and had to steal the name of a continent. Rob (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Rob has opposed the move because he believes that he and other editors "are the only valid source", as opposed to reliable sources. - SudoGhost 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, there is no continent called "America"; there are two named North and South America. Being "colloquial" is irrelevant to article naming and redirect decisions. America as landmass is at least as colloquial as the country, the difference being that the land mass version is now purely an historical term, while in contemporary contexts "America" refers to the USA. Period. The evidence presented has firmly proved that's how the "the world" uses it, so you clearly aren't its spokesman. At least you agree it would save Wiki readers time. Please review basic Wikipedia policy before chiming in here, people. There's ample Wikipedia precedent for disregarding transparently false or invalid rationales for the purposes of ascertaining consensus--like the IP address earlier and others who are unfamiliar with basic Wikipedia naming conventions, those relying on the fallacious dictionary argument that could be used against every primary topic with a disambiguation page, or the posters who just launched personal attacks against the op or exhibited blatant anti-American bigotry. VictorD7 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, taken at face value, it would appear that for a large part of the world, there is a single continent named America. It is true that in English North and South America are considered separate continents, but there appears to be considerable variation in international usage. older ≠ wiser 21:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is the English Wikipedia, and only the English speaking world is pertinent to this discussion. That said, most of even the non-English speaking world uses "America" or variations thereof to refer to the US. VictorD7 (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. Much of the world has some limited familiarity with English due to its ubiquity. We should not assume that the only users are native or high-fluency speakers (and please don't mention the simple English wikipedia). And you'll need to provide some evidence of your claim regarding the non-English-speaking world. For instance, take a look at what the interwiki links are for America in other languages. older ≠ wiser 03:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You may have misread that, it seems to say there are 10 million in China who can speak English, and over 250 million in the US. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't say anything about "native or high-fluency" speakers, and the search results cited as evidence don't break mentions down into "native" and "second language" categories. We're discussing English usage, period. By "English speaking world" in this context I'm including anyone who speaks or writes in English. And I don't need to provide evidence of non-English speakers since that's only of tangential interest to this discussion, though some has already been provided here. I mentioned it as an aside given some of the wildly off the mark comments here about "the world", which some people on this page seem to think consists entirely of Spain and Latin America. I'll also take this opportunity to note the telling dearth of pertinent evidence or even rational argumentation on the opposition side. VictorD7 (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't care all that much about whether America is a redirect or a disambiguation page, but you said No, there is no continent called "America"; there are two named North and South America. That is what I say is an incorrect statement based on international usage. older ≠ wiser 04:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a correct statement in English, which is the language I was speaking, and according to modern scientific convention, which distinguishes between North and South America in a seven continent model. When a modern English speaker does refer to the combined land mass he uses the term "Americas", or the slightly broader "Western Hemisphere".VictorD7 (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
International usage, at least in the case of Europe and especially the UK, is "America" meaning "the New World", with no North/South attached. Grating to a Canadian, but we hear it all the time, whether in the UK or from Brits living in North America now. As I've noted before, there are over a hundred varieties of official English used in diplomatic and economic/humanitarian official-ese. No real distinction can be made between usage by people from the anglosphere, which includes India, Singapore, the Philippines, Nigeria and more that aren't in the usual cast of characters (the UK, Ireland, the US, "the white dominions" plus Jamaica, Bahamas, Belize etc); given the lack of web penetration in such countries I submit the point that googling is not representative of spoken/usage reality at all; and English usage by native speaker, if it's the issue, has to take into account India (the world's largest English-speaking population) and Nigeria, etc. What the EU's style guide for such matters is begs the question of official English in int'l organizations and in countries wehre English is not an official language (though for the EU, internally in terms of organization, it is).Skookum1 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess that's changed then since Alastair Cooke... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sookum1, according to the sources and this discussion, "America" meaning "the New World" is an uncommon usage in Europe and elsewhere when compared to America referring to the United States. Do you have evidence that this is not the case? - SudoGhost 05:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Only personal, or for the most part personal, but so common it's notable, if not citable. My main point is that international English and US English are not the same thing, and there's an ongoing premise among USians that only they and the UK are English-speaking countries; and it's Brits (but also Germans and others) that you hear this usage from, and it does turn up in media especially.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
That's what I'm asking, where is the evidence of this usage? I'm not suggesting it never happens, but it appears to be done in Britain far less commonly than using America to refer to the United States, and India also appears to use America to overwhelmingly refer to the United States, using "North America", "Latin America" or "South America" and not "America" when referring to those geographical areas. - SudoGhost 05:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Totally false. Evidence has already been provided here showing British usage of "America" is around 100% synonymous with the USA, so it's telling that you failed to provide a single shred of contrary evidence (anecdotes don't count). Google searches are the best tools we have available for determining usage (which is why they're explicitly endorsed by Wiki policy), especially since I suspect 100% of Wikipedia users are online. The exceptions where someone outside of "web penetration" is given a printed Wikipedia article are likely too rare for us to bother considering, not that it would change the primacy of "America" referring to the USA in modern contexts. VictorD7 (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In fact, English Iranian news sites (english.farsnews.com/result.aspx?quicksearch=america) frequently use "America" or "Americans" to refer to the US or its citizens (not sure if they ever use it in the defunct landmass sense, but presumably not in their "Death to America" rallies), as do Japanese sites, Russian ones (start with "America's continuity of government plan"), those Chinese you mentioned, etc.. The recent Arabic titled movie "Amreeka" referenced the USA, not the landmass. I could go on and on. VictorD7 (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
"100% synonymous" is what's false, as it's clearly not, as evinced by this discussions itself. And re the Iranian and other "Death To America!" chants, as with Europeans that doesn't exclude Canadians, as we often find out, and targeting Canada or Canadians is considered the same thing as targeting "America". "the problem with you Americans...." we often here, "but I'm Canadian"...."but you're still from America". etc...Skookum1 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I said "around 100% synonymous", which was generous of me since so far you've presented zero evidence to support anything you're saying. Alleged private anecdotes don't count. The Iranians and others I cited are undeniably talking about the nation, not a landmass. They specifically reference things like the government, US officials, July 4 Independence Day celebrations, diplomatic relations, etc.. It's blatantly disingenuous to pretend otherwise. They even sometimes use "Americas" when they need to refer to the landmass. VictorD7 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • While learning History in the English & Welsh Education system I learned about the British Colonisation of America, referring to the continent. This is also used in the phrase 'British America' referring to the British settlements in North and South America. The term 'Americas' was rarely used during my History and Geography lessons. To say the term is no longer used is wrong. 'America' is also not colloquial for the Americas. The name 'America' dates from the early 16th cent. and is believed to derive from the Latin form 'Americus' of the name of Amerigo Vespucci, who sailed along the west coast of South America in 1501.
The Oxford Dictonary definition:
America (also the Americas )
a land mass of the western hemisphere consisting of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama.
My point is completely valid. You cant redirect this page to the colloquial name for a country over the actually and original name for a land mass.
Rob (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You're wrong on every level. First, Wikipedia uses a common name policy anyway, which is why an article is titled "Bill Clinton" rather than "William Jefferson Clinton", or Lady Gaga rather than "Stefani Germanotta". Of course there is no "America" article, as we're just discussing a redirect, so it's not like anything would be lost by the move. All sorts of things serve as redirects, from the country/person's full, official name to alternatives to common misspellings.
  • Second, sidestepping the issue of how precisely "colloquial" should be defined, "America" is commonly and officially used as a short form for the US. It titles academic works on the nation, certain government websites (as posted here earlier), frequent news reports from around the world (as I've undeniably proved), etc..
  • Third, even your personal schooling anecdote from who knows what decade represents historical context usage, which no one denies still occurs ("Columbus discovered America"), and is why it still appears in dictionaries, but that usage is vastly outweighed by the contemporary context uses, and in around 100% of the latter from around the English speaking world "America" means the USA. That includes English speakers in predominately non-English speaking nations like China, Iran, Russia, etc., as I've just demonstrated with ample evidence. People say "Americas" to refer to the contemporary combined landmass.
  • Fourth, dictionaries aren't good sources for establishing usage, which is why the pertinent policy page doesn't mention them but does emphasize google searches. Dictionaries certainly don't prove anything except that more than one definition exists for a word, which no one denies and which is why the US page would feature a link back to the "America" disambiguation page to service the minority of people who typed in "America" looking for something other than the USA article. Also, the "original" meanings of words are irrelevant for determining linking primacy, or else Wikipedia's entire structure would look very different and be extremely difficult to navigate. All that said, the USA is featured in dictionary entries for "America" too. For example...
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
A·mer·i·ca
1. The United States.
The Collins English Dictionary:
America [əˈmɛrɪkə]
n
1. (Placename) short for the United States of America
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary:
A•mer•i•ca (əˈmɛr ɪ kə)
n.
1. United States.
Plus Princeton's thesaurus-like WordNet system lists the USA as the #1 synonym for "America". It's even listed in your Oxford dictionary. In fact, according to a reference note (#5) in the Americas article, ""America." The Oxford Companion to the English Language....Since the 16c, a name of the western hemisphere, often in the plural Americas and more or less synonymous with the New World. Since the 18c, a name of the United States of America. The second sense is now primary in English".
  • Fifth, since everything you said has already been addressed in a variety of ways, please actually read the thread before replying in the future. VictorD7 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I suppose one could argue that everything is to a degree, though I could also cite Wiki policies warning posters against things like misusing accusatory policy citations. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In the United Kingdom, there is a landmass called America, its less common to call it the Americas. Unless you can provide reference please stop suggesting that this isn't the case. I am fully aware of the common name policy however the USA page already has a title. Regardless, redirecting 'America' based on the common name policy is wrong due to the fact that 'America' has multiple meanings that are commonly used in the United Kingdom. That is significant enough not to redirect it. Rob (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Rob, evidence from the BBC site to Alistaire Cooke (see the UK radio series Letter from America) has been presented here showing that "America" is synonymous with the USA in modern contexts in the United Kingdom. The Oxford Companion to the English Language says understanding "America" to mean the USA "is now primary in English". You've failed to show a single counterexample. Please stop posting unless you can contribute more than already debunked talking points, as it's just consuming space. It's still not even clear you fully grasp the distinction being made here. "America" as landmass is still used in America too, not just the UK, but in both places in historical contexts (like the schooling anecdote you provided). We call the combined continents "America" if discussing the time back when they did. It's slightly different but sort of like modern historians referring to "the known world" in an ancient context, which usually means the area around the Mediterranean. Of course now the entire globe is known, and over the past couple of centuries Brits and most of the rest of the world have taken to calling the continents "the Americas", or using more specific language, leaving "America" as a synonym for the USA. Modern context usage vastly outweighs historical context usage in frequency, hence the primacy. BTW, a search of the BBC (that's a major UK news service for those who don't know) site for "Americas" shows over 45k results, many of them even in the historical context, so it's clearly common. A stand alone "America" virtually always refers to the USA, especially in the modern context. VictorD7 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You are completely wrong. I have never said 'America' is not synonymous with the USA. I also do not deny that 'America' is most commonly used to describe the USA and that 'The Americas' is often used to describe the landmass. Like I said however the term 'America' is still commonly used to describe the landmass in modern context in the United Kingdom. Heres an example: [7]
I am posting because you are wrong, if anyone is consuming space it's you.
Rob (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't post or anything like that, so please don't assume my disagreeing with you is suggesting that your input isn't valuable because it is, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that "America" is not used to describe other things, only that it is used to describe the United States much more often than not, so much so that the page should follow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Somewhat related, but in your example America and the Americas are both used, is there a reason for this that I'm unaware of? I don't know if (or how) it would be related to this discussion, but I did find that interesting. - SudoGhost 22:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • VictorD7 is suggesting that 'America' is no longer used in modern context to describe the landmass in the United Kingdom. Also you cant redirect this page to the colloquial name for a country over the actually and original name for a land mass that is still commonly used in the United Kingdom. I think the example uses both names for clarity. But it shows that the term 'America' is still used in modern context for the landmass in the United Kingdom. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking more carefully, he seems to use the term 'Americas' when he's talking about all the continents individually whereas he uses the term 'America' when comparing the land mass to Eurasia, another landmass that may not be described as a continent. Rob (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, Rob, you just got through claiming that in Britain it's "less common to call it the Americas", I proved you wrong by showing BBC search results with over 45k hits for "Americas" (a quick sample scan of which confirms they're referring to the landmass), and you counter with a single headline? Congratulations for finally finding one counterexample, but I never said there were no exceptions, which is why I keep using language like "virtually always refers to the USA" or "around 100%" of the time. Sometimes people use poor grammar or even having misspellings in headlines. There are always exceptions. But you need a lot more than one example to even begin making your case, especially when even in your example the author repeatedly uses "Americas" in the body, further undermining your claim. America is no more a "colloquial" name for the USA than it is for the landmass (not that I know of any anti-colloquial rule for redirects), and the fact that the word has different uses (which has never been disputed) doesn't mean it doesn't have a primary topic. You're wrong. In fact you've apparently conceded that "America" is used most commonly to describe the USA, which is the rationale for the redirect. The America disambiguation would still exist with the link to it prominently featured on the United States page for the rarer uses. What would be wrong with that setup? You have yet to mount a cogent argument against it. Please explain why a word's "original" meaning matters, particularly after centuries have passed and the language has evolved. VictorD7 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You have not proved me wrong. How common a term is does not relate to its use in media. The BBC uses the term 'the Americas' because it avoids confusion. My example, where there would be little confusion due to the term being used alongside 'Eurasia' suggests that 'America' is in fact more common. Also, the term 'the Americas' and 'America' are used in alternative ways. 'the Americas' refers to two landmasses (as it is plural) and and therefore would be more suitable when using the 7 continent model (as the article text does) whereas 'America' refers to one landmass and therefore is used when talking about the 5 continent model (as the title does). This effectively proves that 'America' is not colloquial (or short) for 'the Americas'. Regarding the United States of America, the term America is colloquial due to the fact that it is used informally. Lastly, regarding Wikipedia rules, I really don't care. You can't (as per common sense) redirect the term 'America', a term that has multiple commonly used meaning in the United Kingdom to the United States article. This is an International Wiki, it does not preference any Country or Nationality. Rob (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What? Media usage certainly trumps unverifiable personal anecdote, and in this case jives with scholarly books and virtually every British person I've ever personally talked to. As for "Americas", I just showed over 45,000 hits for it on the BBC site and you only countered with a single example of them using "America" in the landmass sense, so what's your evidence that the latter is more common? Yes, they use "Americas" because it avoids confusion. That's a major reason the language has evolved the way it has around the world over the centuries. I'm not sure why you're going off on the tangent about different continental systems, especially since the 7 continent model is standard, but if you're contending that "America" as landmass isn't synonymous with "Americas" that still leaves it as an extremely rare usage. Even if your claim about the UK was correct (which it isn't), as you say, we aren't slaves to any particular nation, and the overwhelming evidence from around the world presented by move supporters all show overwhelming primacy for "America" as the USA, regardless of common use in Britain. At least you're honest in saying you "don't care" about "Wikipedia rules". You never did answer my question about why a word's "original meaning" should hold sway after centuries of linguistic evolution. Would you like to retract your claim on that? VictorD7 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Here are many examples of 'America' describing the continent. [8] The original name of a land mass cannot be a colloquial form of a modern term as it pre-dates it. The common use in the United Kingdom is important due to the fact that searching the term 'America' on Wikipedia would redirect to the United States rather then a disambiguation page that they can quickly navigate to the page they are looking for. This delays many readers who, like myself use the term 'America' over 'the Americas'. If both readers looking for the United States and the land mass are redirected to a disambiguation page when searching 'America' then there is no bias. Rob (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Rob...on the first page of your search results there are only two examples of modern, contemporary context uses of "America" as landmass: one is a Spanish based website called Classora and the other is an absurd satirical post on "wronganswers.com that also lists "Madagascar", "Greenland", and "Hawaii" as continents and points out that they "have no emotions". The second page doesn't help you either. Maybe you were counting on nobody clicking on your link, but I'm wondering more and more if you're just here to have a laugh at the Yanks and their foreign supporters. VictorD7 (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not about the concentration of relevant results, that wasn't the point of the search query. The query shows many examples of the term being used to describe the continent. It's very difficult to get a high concentration of relevant results due to the much larger use of the term to describe the USA. 'Britain' is a term that relates to a land mass and a country. Most people search 'Britain' looking for the country but there is still a large number of people who are looking for the island therefore as per common sense, you don't redirect it to the country's article. Rob (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Apart from the Spanish based site (which has a big asterisk to say the least), I didn't see any modern context examples of "America" referring to the combined landmass in your link. How many pages does one have to go through to find these alleged "many"? Since the purpose of the searches is to gauge frequency (why concentration does matter), and you admit the "much larger" USA meaning, then I guess it's a moot point though. I haven't studied "Britain" usage as much as this case, but from what I've seen maybe that should redirect too. At least the "Britain" disambiguation page lists the modern country on top, making it better than the current America page setup. VictorD7 (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The various opposing responses suggests that I am not alone in calling the land mass 'America'. The ratio of people looking for the USA in comparison to the land mass is irrelevant. The fact that a large number of readers will be redirected to a page that they are not looking for when searching a formal name of a common entity is not right. I don't care what Wikipedia policies say, it's common sense. Rob (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You aren't a valid source, you failed to substantiate your "numbers" claim with a shred of evidence (indeed your posting has undermined your own position), and your grasp of common sense is unproved to say the least. BTW, there are as many supporting responses and vastly more if one dismisses the votes of those with transparently invalid rationales, like not understanding what the proposal is, just spewing insults, being demonstrably unaware of basic Wikipedia naming conventions, making provably false claims that fly in the face of all the evidence presented, or simply announcing that they don't care about Wikipedia policy. VictorD7 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

* Oppose Are searchability and the dictionary the only criteria we are using here? I think it makes sense for articles to be under the name that most accurately and specifically identifies them, and only using commonness of use as a further criteria dependent on that. The fact of the matter is that the wolrd "America", even in common usage with the same person, on its own has multiple meanings. Even if in most cases people are referring the the United States, this still depends wholly on context. It may usually mean the United States, but it doesn't often enough that it is not a very precise name to use. It's ambiguous: the kind of term that disambiguations were made for. But that is not necessarily the point. The point is that the formal name of the United States of America is the United States of America, and people recognize that and call it that and that is the one fully unambiguous usage. At the very least, "United States" should remain the pagename and "America" should be a redirect to it. I don't mean to be so strict with this, but Rob has a point. Even if Wikipedia uses a Common Name Policy, I at least think that in regard to this article this is a perfect time to ignore the rules and try to have the best possible precision in naming the article (which, by the way, is another factor in the name policy). anamedperson (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

According to this proposal, the article United States will still be at United States. Are people just not getting that, or what? Moreover, if this proposal succeeds, America will redirect to it. So from your statement near the end At the very least, "United States" should remain the pagename and "America" should be a redirect to it... it sounds as if you meant to vote "Support". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I reread some of this thread after I posted this, and now I get that (though I am a little bit embarrassed I didn't realize what you were trying to do immediately). Still, my arguments stand, with admittedly a little less grounding, and I still lean slightly towards "Oppose". The fact the "America" has multiple valid meanings that should be acknowledged remains, but I understand wanting to make things more convenient based on how things are actually used. That makes sense too. anamedperson (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
"Multiple valid meanings" are why a disambiguation page would still exist if this move occurs, but when a particular use has primacy, which the evidence presented overwhelmingly demonstrates is the case here, it's standard Wikipedia practice to redirect searches directly to the intended article, adding a link back to the disambiguation page there. This isn't a bizarre or unprecedented case. Many disambiguation pages have a primary topic. What's unusual is that one with as primary a topic as this one currently fails to recognize it, incredibly not even listing the USA first, much less sending searches for "America" directly to the United States page first, which is what should happen. VictorD7 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think I am going to have to change my position to say that I am now neutral on the proposed change. —anamedperson (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support For strong reasons by VictorD7 above. Readin (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for a few reasons. First, the so-called "evidence" is far from conclusive and contains numerous false positives that artificially inflate the ratio in favor of the U.S. There is no question that the U.S. is a very common, and likely even the most likely, sense of the term. But there is also no question that there is considerable ambiguity and the evidence is simply not conclusive IMO. Second, the tendentiousness of some editors in pushing for what they see as the TRUTH and their dismissiveness towards all those who question this TRUTH, besides being obnoxious, also suggests that the lady doth protest too much, methinks in denying that other opinions have any validity. older ≠ wiser 22:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the "false positive" argument. Could you please expound? That seems more like an argument that might be made if comparative totals had been presented and a ratio quantified, which wasn't the case here. Instead, the op presented a BBC search showing 100% of the uses in that particular search referred to the US, and supporters have generally posted search links to sites hosted in various nations inviting people to scan for themselves and see that virtually every use refers to the US, relying on the respondents' good faith to handle the task themselves and proceed from there honestly. VictorD7 (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Labattblueboy already pointed out several. The searches included a wide range of topics that are not specifically referring to the U.S. older ≠ wiser 00:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You didn't answer my question. He cited a few examples of "America" being used in proper names. That those organizations were based in and referring to the US only supports the supporters' argument, but even if they weren't how would they be "false positives"? It's not like they had been cited in some type of count. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. VictorD7 (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I did answer the question. I guess you just didn't like the answer. Results for a yacht named "America", or a race named "America's Cup" are false positives and artificially inflate the count. The derivation of the term is irrelevant, else Boston would link to the original place name in England. older ≠ wiser 01:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, you didn't answer the question. To what "count" are you referring? What precisely do you feel was inflated? As for your "Boston" example, that seems to support my above contention that a word's original meaning is irrelevant (contrary to the claim by an opponent) in a usage discussion, but two different locations sharing a place name isn't analogous to an organization like the Recording Industry Association of America, where the place name in the title intentionally describes the group's location and scope, though none of that has anything to do with explaining your "false positive" argument. VictorD7 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Whether the origin of a name is relevant depends on when the name was given. "America's Cup", for example, was named for a 19th century Schooner designed by and for American "...to show off U.S. shipbuilding skill" (according to the Wikipedia). This is an example of how as early as the 19th century the older use of "America" to designate the Americas was being replaced by the modern usage. More recent examples would of course be more relevant. For example "America's Got Talent" would be a very relevant recent example of a name origin. The example of Boston is taken from ancient history and is not relevant.Readin (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • VictorD7, you say "an organization like the Recording Industry Association of America, where the place name in the title intentionally describes the group's location and scope." (VictorD7) How do you know that? Suppose that Recording Industry Association of America was named Recording Industry Association of America as a short way of saying Recording Industry Association of the United States of America and not, as you presumptiously contend, as a way of describing their location?? While "America" in the title may intentionally describe their location, I very much doubt they used it in their name because they were making the statement that "America" only means "The United States". I realize this is a fine distiction and may not be grasped by everyone, but it doesn't do away with the fact that you are actually basing your argument on the fallacy of False equivalence. The way I am reading you, you are using that example as evidence that "America" is used today to mean only "the United States" (because it is being used in that name and by that one group to mean only the USA), but your example provides no such evidence. The fact that we can quote one case where "America" means "US" doesn't automatically imply that all uses of "America" in proper names mean only the US, and certainly do not imply that "America" is not also used to mean something else than the US. Examples like that don't mean that all the proper names with "America" in them will also mean only "US". All that would be evidence of is that "America" is also used to mean "The United States". However, no one here is arguing that "America" is not also used to mean "The United States." My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • Mercy11, no one has claimed "America" "only means" the US. And no, I simply cited one of the examples of alleged "false positives" given by Labattblueboy and referenced by Bkonrad to illustrate the difference between that and his "Boston" comments on original derivation. And yes, "America", like "United States", is a proper short form for the United States of America. It's common for US based and focused groups to have "America" in their title. There's not need to rely on a single example when vast evidence has been produced showing USA primacy. I'd ask that you read through the various linked searches that have been provided. VictorD7 (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You now seem to be denying that you are using the vast number of sources that use "America" in their proper names to mean "the United States" as evidence that they are all making a statement that America means primarily "the United States" and that, thus, the article should redirect there. And, no, "America", unlike "United States", is not a proper short form for the United States of America -- this is precisely why we are in this dilemma now. "America" is an ambiguous short form for the United States, and one form that is made unambiguous only by its context. There is no good reason to perpetuate this ambiguity and to continue to press for "America" to mean primarily the United States, as several here are claimimg. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • No, I corrected your straw man by pointing out that nobody had ever claimed "America" "only" means the US, and by pointing out that I didn't cite the single example you mentioned as proof in and of itself of the USA's meaning primacy (but to refute a different argument by another poster, which should be clear from the context), though it and the other proper names en mass are certainly strong supporting evidence. However, if you don't want to consider the proper names then exclude them when perusing the various search results provided to you, and you'll see that totally unqualified, modern context uses of a standalone "America" almost always refer to the USA, confirming its primacy. If you like I can post thousands of examples here from websites based all over the world. You have no basis for asserting that it's an improper short form name of the country. Even the dictionaries disagree with you. As to ambiguity, perhaps you're unaware that many disambiguation pages (which inherently have multiple meanings) have a designated primary topic. "America" should redirect to the USA page and link back from there to the disambiguation page, just as pages like Boston, Rome, and countless others do. VictorD7 (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If you don't mind me asking for clarification, Lbattblueboy pointed out several what? The only thing I see are dictionary/encyclopedia definitions (which have less weight than secondary sources, even ignoring the fact that suggesting how they order their entries is indicative of primary usage or WP:OR). Also what searches are you referring to? The page view stats? I don't see how those could be false positives, and if there are numerous false positives, could you please give an example? - SudoGhost 07:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - The whole piece of land now known as North and South America is "America". The country commonly mistaken as America is known as "US" or "USA". Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nominator's and its followers' arguments have failed to convince me the move/rename is warranted. Even before this move was requested, I personally never had any problem with the way this page was working. After reading through the whole enchilada twice, my take is to leave things as they are. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • Comment - For the benefit of readers who for whatever reason haven't been able to click on the various links provided, I'll demonstrate the overwhelming primacy of "America" referring to the USA by listing some search results examples in order of appearance below from a cross section of various major websites based around the world. Organizational proper names containing the word "America" almost always refer to the US in an English language context and are perfectly valid supporting evidence, but to underscore how clear the primacy is I'll exclude them, obviously along with terms qualified by "North"/"South"/"Latin"/etc., using only pure, standalone post 1776 context "America" mentions. I'll even exclude "American", though that frequently used demonym almost always refers to US citizens. I will include the nation's possessive form. Except for the Iranian site, where "american" (sic) mentions flood the zone, these are all from the first page:
  • "Guardian prints new claims about America's surveillance operations"
  • "Its screenings in Australia and America have also been met with critical acclaim."
  • "Xinhua also rebukes America's "relentless efforts to make groundless claims against..."
  • "Edward Snowden, America's world famous NSA leaker"
  • "Hijacking epidemic in America: 1961-1972...Between 1961 and 1972, more than 150 flights were hijacked in American airspace." (video makes it clear it's about the US)
  • "America's decision to advance into North Korea"
  • "...the world leaders are Japan, France and America"
  • "In America, Magna Carta Holy Grail was released three days early"
  • "...politics and society in America"
  • "Born 21/04/89 in Russia Moved to America in 1994 after..."
  • "America this Week: 07/07/2013...Highlights of the week in politics in the USA from C-SPAN"
  • "...the success of British rock in America"
  • "...Allen Ginsberg's 'Who Runs America?"
  • "Paul and Seth send back their very own 'letters from America' during their time in Florida"
  • "Anti-Communist Paranoia in 1950s America"
  • "6-year-old Magnus has decided to run away to America"
  • "...officially sworn in as America's 44th President."
  • "America's weak support for the government of Tunisia" (AP, AFP)
  • "It became a dance hit in America and Germany"
  • "...he and America's defence minister"
  • "NSW court 'can't judge US rapper'...`My client is an American resident who lives and works in America…"
  • ""...of America's Most Notorious Mob Boss"
  • "America Votes....Race for the White House."
  • "America And Abortion...And with the U.S. presidential election now just 25 days away"
  • "This Guy Is Walking Across America To Raise Money For Hospitalized Kids Around The World...Cody Thompson is planning on walking across the United States"
  • "REDESIGNING AMERICA.... series that is out to deconstruct...and reconstruct...the cultural image of our neighbours to the south....America's international reputation....on America's Independence Day, July 4th."
  • "Canada Takes the Political Pulse of America!"
  • "In the fight for equality in America, Jackie Robinson's debut"
  • "A crucial exercise and flight test of america's ballistic missile defense system"
  • "america's National Security Agency (NSA)"
  • "america Feeds the Rich...The United States is no longer"
  • " Rural america is losing population for the first time ever"
  • ynet news (Israeli; long link, search for "America")
  • "vowed that Israel "will always remain America's steadfast and unwavering ally"...He also offered a "salute" to the "courage of America's soldiers,""
  • "Israel losing America"
  • ""It's better to seal a deal with China and get all we need. Money for development, arms. America is finished anyway. How do they allow themselves to object to the will of the Egyptian people?"" (Egyptian being interviewed)
  • ""But this is a military coup and America will be all over you," Morsi said"
  • "Export Institute says America received record $224 million worth of Israeli food"
  • "All with the approval of America, Israel and the Arabs, of course."
  • "Host of America's hit..."
  • "Hezbollah: Qusair victory 'tough blow' to America, Zionists"
  • "Stain on America...Op-ed: We can already draft apology US will issue in decade or two for not helping tens of thousands of Syrian citizens"
  • Every single one of the above examples refer to the USA. In all that I don't recall seeing a single example of "America" being mentioned in the combined landmass sense in a post 1776 context, and perhaps only two or three times in an older context: one on the BBC page but not in the article when clicked, so maybe it had been revised out, a botanical article going back centuries and using "North America" in the body, and a Cabot era exploration piece which still said "Amerike gave his name and badge to what, in time, was to become one of the great nations of the world." There were a few "Americas" mentions, with most of the other unposted results being "American" (US citizen) mentions, US based organizational proper names with "America" in the title, or qualified terms like "North America". In a few cases I clicked on the article to get more context. These aren't even American sites. Anyone is free to scan such results themselves and find thousands more examples, amply demonstrating overwhelming usage primacy. VictorD7 (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Search execution still do not address the concern of false positives. For example when I executed the BBC search at 12:25PM EST, half the articles on the first page (for which there were 20) were false positives. Here is the list of article titles and the reason they are false positive:
  • Edward Snowden re-emerges for Moscow airport meeting - Latin America
  • Profile: Kate, Duchess of Cambridge - North America
  • Jerry Seinfeld tops US comedian rich list - America's Got Talent
  • Scottish tourism industry picks up - North America
  • Dead man Lenin Carballido wins Mexico mayoral vote - Latin America
  • Amnesty urges Chile rape victim abortion rethink - Latin America
  • Brazil protests: Tens of thousands in union-led strikes - Latin America
  • Rudimental 'excited' ahead of Jay-Z festival performance - Made in America (event name)
  • Brazil row over topless fan ban in Maracana stadium - Latin America
  • Brighton Develop 2013: Gaming's mobile future - North America
This is without even getting into whether, even a majority, could be classifed as reliable sources. For example, my examination of just the first page of the CBC hits at 12:35PM EST showed half being from what is classifed as a comedy show (Strombo) by CBC, and two false positives (one for North America - from article "2003: The great North America blackout" and one for South America from article "Calgary Zoo closes flood-damaged South America building"). More refined results are still required.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the results change based on location or something, but I was not able to replicate those results; the results I got were entirely consistent with America being used to refer to the United States. What exactly did you search for and what did the results say? If you searched for "America" and got an article specifically saying "Latin America", that's not a "false positive". - SudoGhost 16:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
You're misusing the term "false positive". It's not a "positive" if it's not reported. The question is whether standalone uses of "America" primarily refer to the USA or not, and my list only reported unqualified examples showing that the standalone term is used frequently and virtually always refers to the USA. Even the two examples in your list without a "North" or "Latin" both refer to the US, and therefore aren't "false". VictorD7 (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - For the benefit of readers who don't have common sense. Redirecting this page to the USA page will cause readers looking for the land mass to be redirected to a page that they are not looking for when searching the term 'America'. From the amount of opposing responses and my experience as a British citizen this is a lot of people. Regardless of Wikipedia Policy, this is not right. Rob (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know if you saw the stats, but readers are overwhelmingly looking for the United States, not Americas. Policies, guidelines, reliable sources, and pageview stats all overwhelmingly support the United States as the primary topic for the disambiguation. You're suggesting we ignore all of those in favor of anecdotal evidence? - SudoGhost 13:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's irrelevant to my point. Currently all readers are directed to the correct location. If you redirect this page then some readers will be directed to the wrong location when making a perfectly valid search. This is not right. Rob (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That's actually completely relevant to your point as it's not the correct location, and you've given no evidence as to why it would be. When an ambiguous term has a primary topic, that isn't ignored just because other things exist, that runs completely counter to the community-established consensus at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Are you suggesting that all ambiguous subjects point to the disambiguation page first, as that rationale would apply to all articles that have a primary topic. - SudoGhost 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It is the correct location as in all readers will reach the relevant page. As per common sense, all ambiguous terms that are commonly used to describe multiple topics should not be redirected to a specific topic. Otherwise a lot of readers will be redirected to a page that they are not looking for and not have to change the terminology they are accustomed to in order to navigate Wikipeida. This is not right. Rob (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Common sense suggests that if the overwhelming majority of people are looking for a primary topic, to point the page to that topic. Your rationale is completely contrary to Wikipedia consensus on the matter and common sense says that this topic should not be an exception to that reasoning just because of the personal feelings of a few editors. Would you change where Rome points just because someone might be looking for Roman Empire? Countless topics share an ambiguous descriptor yet point to a primary topic, this subject is not special in that regard and what would "not be right" would be to ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and make an exception to America for no reason. - SudoGhost 16:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe I should have made this more clear. All ambiguous terms that are commonly used to describe multiple topics should not be redirected to a specific topic. This is not about ratios. Just because the USA has a majority means nothing. Currently, I have no idea how many people use the term 'America' to describe the land mass. I'm not going to go round surveying a large amount of people either however I have asked friends 'What do you call the land mass between the Atlantic and Pacific ocean?' They all said 'America'. The amount of users opposing the move also suggests there are a lot of people who use the term 'America' to describe the landmass. My point is, currently all users reach the page (even if they have to go though a disambiguation) they are searching for. Moving this page will cause many readers to be redirected to a page that they are not looking for and will have to change the terminology they are accustomed to in order to navigate Wikipeida. How is this a good idea? Rob (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
"Just because the USA has a majority means nothing" is in direct opposition to what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says. Moving this page will cause most readers to be taken directly to what they're looking for while some will need to click a single link to find less common usages, that is why it is a good idea and it also makes it consistent with how other topics are treated. All readers will still reach the page they are searching for, that doesn't change. How many editors oppose the move also is indicative of nothing, since such discussions are not based on votes. Why are you suggesting that this page be treated special when others are not, even when the rationales are the same? - SudoGhost 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There are no policies that advise editors not to break the search engine. It's just common sense not to. 'All readers will still reach the page they are searching for, that doesn't change.' That's a complete lie. Maybe you have never used Wikipedias search engine before, it directs users straight to a page with the when the query is exactly the same as the page's title. Many Brits, like myself will search the term 'America' looking for the land mass and be directed to the wrong artile. This would then cause me and many other readers to have to search using terminology we are not accustomed to in order to navigate to the article I am looking for. How is this right? Rob (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
...break the search engine? I don't know how you came to that conclusion but (1) how exactly would that happen? and (2) are you opposing the move simply because of a concern about how it will alter search results? If you type America and are in the minority that are not looking for the United States, there will be a hatnote at the topic of that article, the very first thing you'll see, directing you to the disambiguation page. So to suggest that the move will somehow make that information inaccessible in incorrect (I appreciate you accusing me of lying, but hardly a lie if it is demonstrably accurate). - SudoGhost 17:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • By 'Break the search engine', I mean, it will cause readers to be directed to the wrong location, which is not what the search engine is suppose to do. This minority you talk about is currently 6 million Brits (Unless a Brit can confirm this is not the case). It's not fair that readers will have to navigate though the United States page when making a perfectly valid search as they will then be more likely to use terminology they are not accustomed in future. Wikipedia should not influence people to use alternative terminology in order to be directed to an article faster. It's not right, again as per common sense. Rob (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "Wrong location" is exactly what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC determines, if we take your suggestion and ignore that then "wrong" just becomes a wild opinion, and articles should not use opinions (especially ones that fly in the face of reliable sources and Wikipedia consensus). Given that the BBC references above use America to refer specifically to the United States, it's hardly accurate to assume that your use is the same in all of Britain, Your rationales use little evidence but a lot of appeals to emotion; "it's not fair?" Fair would be using reliable sources and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a consistent manner. That is common sense, and is also fair. I also agree completely that "Wikipedia should not influence people to use alternative terminology in order to be directed to an article faster.", which is why I'm confused that you want to oppose the move simply to manipulate search results in order to, as you put it, "be directed to an article faster". You're asking that we throw evidence and Wikipedia convention out the window in favor of appeals to emotion. That is not "fair". - SudoGhost 17:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What I mean by 'Wrong location' is when I user makes a search query and does not arrive at the location he was looking for. This is not based on opinions, it's a fact. I am assuming all of Britain uses the term the same as me because I live here. Currently I, and other Wikipedia editors are the only valid source as media organisations intentionally avoid using terms that have multiple meanings and therefore do not represent common usage. I still don't understand why you can't see that it's unfair that someone using the term to be directed to the USA page would have priority over someone using the term to be directed to the land mass page. I think many editors will agree with me that this is a good enough reason to WP:Break all rules. Rob (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Your personal anecdotal evidence doesn't count for anything on Wikipedia. Saying "I, and other Wikipedia editors are the only valid source" cannot be more wrong, and I'm honestly astounded that you said that. You are never a valid source, that is a core policy. You believe your personal experience "is the only valid source" and that's why you oppose the move. I don't even have to say anything further, you've done it for me. - SudoGhost 18:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Original Research is allowed when it is attributable. My statement is attributable because all Brits would agree with me. It is common knowledge (in the United Kingdom) that the land mass between the Pacific and Atlantic is commonly called America. similarly it is common knowledge that the islands north of Europe are commonly called the British Isles, you don't need to reference it. Regardless, until a consensus is reached on my argument, you can't redirect this page. Rob (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:NOR: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." Wikipedia policy specifically says the opposite of what you're suggesting; you saying it is not attribution, especially because it is verifiable false that "all Brits would agree with you". - SudoGhost 22:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, there are no similar cases to this where a term that is used commonly to describe two entities is redirected to one of them. This is not being 'treated special'. Rob (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Rome is a very obvious example, as are countless others on Wikipedia, especially since one term is overwhelmingly the primary topic over the other. You're suggesting that this article be treated as an exception for the sole reason that you don't like how it will affect search results. That is not how articles are determined on Wikipedia, especially in such an inconsistent manner. - SudoGhost 17:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If the term 'Rome' has multiple meaning that are commonly used then it should be redirected to a disambiguation and the current article should be moved to Rome (City). However I do not think the other meaning are commonly used in modern context? Rob (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
@SuduGhost: Actually, I've yet to see any real evidence that "the overwhelming majority of people are looking for" the United States when they search for America. I've seen lots of bluster and inference above; but as near as I can tell in this mass of verbiage, no one has cited any actual figures to support that contention, and I don't see how anyone could come up with such figures. Deor (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Very first comment above, also reflected by the usage in reliable sources. - SudoGhost 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
That's not evidence; it's simple assertion. Deor (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The reliable sources are the most reliable evidence one can have on Wikipedia, and there is zero evidence to the refute the overwhelming evidence of a clear primary topic other than a few cherry-picked examples of the term being used to describe another topic which is completely consistent with the need for a disambiguation page, but does not refute the fact that one topic falls under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - SudoGhost 17:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Rob, inconveniencing the vast majority to avoid inconveniencing a small minority is diametrically opposed to common sense, not just the Wikipedia policy you admit you don't care about. SudoGhost is correct. VictorD7 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy break

  • Oppose – the recent redirect links show nearly equal traffic to the top two ambiguous meanings. The disambig page is working as it should; the primarytopic claim should be dismissed. Dicklyon (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The Americas redirect had half as many page views at first until that was pointed out, then there was a suspiciously large jump in those page views. Given how easy it is to inflate pageviews, the page views mean nothing and carry zero weight. Do you have a guideline or policy-based reason to oppose the move? - SudoGhost 20:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have. On both points. The traffic-based stats do not clearly support the idea that the number of people seeking the proposed new primarytopic via this page is "much greater" than the number seeking other alternatives. And their is no difference in enduring important or whatever they call it. People are not having trouble finding the article they seek, and it would be a shame to screw with that by bypassing the redirect on this ambiguous term. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)ha
  • ...again, the "traffic-based stats" mean nothing. Those stats are not based on either a guideline nor a policy, and in fact the about page for those stats specifically says "It is easily susceptible to deliberate attacks and manipulations, but for most articles it should give a fair view of the number of views. I wouldn't base any important decisions on these stats." The ease in which those numbers can be manipulated means that those numbers have zero weight in determining a primary topic. None. Especially since those stats have so wildly changed since being discussed, there's no cause to base a decision on easily manipulated numbers. People would still not have trouble finding the article they seek, so that's not an issue either. - SudoGhost 22:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • My interpretation of the graph is that someone was manipulating the stats on July 15-16, and again on the 18-19. Averaging the stats for July 14, 15, 17, and 20 suggests that 674 ((576+630+793+695)/4) readers a day land on the DAB. Of these, 40 percent ((213+224+402+249)/4) are going to the United States and 21 percent ((129+167+129+152)/4) to the Americas. Perhaps the remaining 39 percent never thought of "America" as an ambiguous term and are confused by the page. Since a Google ranking suggests that very few of those who type in "America" are seeking information on the Americas, even the modest percentage of readers going to this article may be an artifact of the top billing that it currently receives. Warrior of Zen (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If your interpretation is right, there's still not even 2X more traffic to the one article than to the other, and less than half altogether for the one you want to claim as primary. That's not nearly enough to support a primarytopic claim. Leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You make it sound like primary topic is some kind of award that an article must prove itself worthy of. Isn't the idea to get readers to where they what to go? As the nominator notes, the number of readers who type in "America" and arrive at this page is quite large. I find it unlikely that any significant percentage of these readers are seeking the North and South American landmass, the town in Argentina, or the one in The Netherlands. It's probably more like, "I had no idea the Dutch had a town named 'America'." That's not the way a DAB is supposed to be used. Warrior of Zen (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, a primarytopic claim is something that needs to be proved worthy. The default should be to leave the disambig page to disambiguate the ambiguous term. I don't believe you have shown a net benefit to this proposed change. Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "US" and "USA" are shorter than "America", and yet the latter is often used. Plus the evidence includes article body mentions, books, websites, etc.. VictorD7 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Those supporting the move having failed to demonstrate that there is a clear primary topic. The USA is the most common meaning, but it is less than half of the total usage - i.e. more people want the USA than any other single meaning, but more than half the people want something other than the USA. Additionally, I have looked through all the articles and the first 100 non-article pages that link to America (excluding via redirects). I've compiled a list at User:Thryduulf/Links to America detailing what the editors were expecting the "America" article to be. It excludes those where the menaing is unclear and those that talk about the article or title rather than America (by any meaning) as a subject. Note I've disambiguated all but one of the article space pages (as the meaning there is unclear, it has already been explicitly marked as needing disambiguation). The results again show that while the USA is the most common meaning it is not primary - with 24 meaning "USA" and 26 meaning something else. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Overwhelming evidence from actual societal usage has demonstrated primacy. It's not even close. If you're basing your "less than half the total usage" claim on the click numbers, you're ignoring the demonstrated "curious click" phenomenon (see the July 4 numbers for non US oriented articles for a salient illustration), and the fact that the stats are unreliable because they're easily manipulated (see the unusual and extreme volatility of "Americas (redirect)"), underscoring the problem of relying on Wikipedia itself for evidence. This site is supposed to reflect external usage, not shape it. On that theme, regarding your list, while it proves nothing about usage it's shocking that so many people link to the America page when the editors who did so presumably checked it at some point and know that it's a disambiguation page. I wonder if at least some of them are simply errors. That said, while I haven't checked your work in detail, going by your own markings a strong majority of your list either refers to "United States" or something like "citizen of the United States". I haven't been able to duplicate the 24/26 count you gave. Also, after scanning just a few items, I've already found two you've marked as continental that are questionable. There's no reason to assume the 3rd Rock From the Sun talk page is referring to anything other than US citizens, and the User:Chris73 page (from a blocked user whose page hasn't been active since 2006) that you said "probably means "North America"" doesn't contain the word "America" or any other location link I can see in front or in source view. VictorD7 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I can't believe people voting "oppose" are still crowing about the "results" supporting "Americas" like that's their best possible ammunition now, when the "results" in fact had to be shut down because of blatant, statistically observable, cheating. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The pageview stats on the Americas redirect started very low until it was pointed out how much more the United States redirect was being used, then the pageviews on the Americas redirect suddenly jumped substantially. What's really interesting is that ever since the pageviews experiment was stopped two days ago and thus no longer matter, the pageviews for the Americas redirect plummeted by around 50% overnight. The United States redirect pageviews dropped as well, but nowhere near as much. What's also interesting is that the spike in traffic on the United States redirect on the 17th was "answered" by a spike in traffic for the Americas redirect the next day on the 18th, indicative of someone trying to "catch up" to make it look more ambiguous. - SudoGhost 16:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
How is that proof of cheating? 200.82.125.22 (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
If you believe it's a coincidence I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Show me the proof that the page view rate of those two articles was consistent and stable before the stats were brought up into in this discussion page. 200.82.125.22 (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Compare the extreme volatility of the Americas (redirect) chart with the United States of America (redirect) chart. The latter looks more like the normal fluctuation you'd see with a typical topic (the first day, the 12th, was partial). Regarding your specific comment, the USA redirect page had an almost 2 to 1 advantage over the first couple of days, a move opponent created a chart to display the stats on the Talk Page starting on the 14th, and the America's numbers kept increasing to an insanely high level. As soon as the test was effectively ended the numbers dropped back down to around where they had started, with the USA page having a massive advantage. I don't see why "proof" would be required; reasonable suspicion is enough to undermine reliability. The stat source itself cautions people against ascribing too much weight to such numbers, as they can be easily manipulated. VictorD7 (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Due to the fact that nobody, as far as I'm aware has any evidence that the term "America" isn't commonly used by 63 million Brits to describe the landmass, my, and other users experiences (a form of original research) is a valid source due to the fact that it's attributable (as per Wikipedia:No original research). The UK makes up approximately 14% of the Anglosphere, so this may be approximately the amount of traffic from British users on Wikipedia. Evidence suggests that Anglo-America users use the term "America" exclusively to describe the USA. Anglo-America makes up 79% of the Anglosphere. The other 7% is Australians, New Zealanders and Irish people, all of which have a more similar dialect to the United Kingdom. Before you all start quoting news agencies, I want to explain why these are not valid sources when you are talking about common usage. Most news articles cover quite board topics, therefore avoid using terms with multiple meanings. When an article or any document is talking about a particular topic, for example tectonic-plates, and the use of the term "America" is not ambiguous, the term is used the majority of the time in the UK from the evidence I have seen. Please also note when doing search queries on the term "Americas" that you will also get results for "America's". Another thing to note is that common usage and usage in the media does not equal usage as a search query. Due to the fact that searching "USA" is quicker then search "America", may mean that "America" is not commonly used to search for the USA. I'm not saying this proves, or disproves whether there's a primary topic, I'm just giving reasons for the data. Regards, Rob (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You've said this already, and it was refuted before you even said it the first time. The BBC routinely refers to the United States as America., unless you're suggesting that the Supreme Court of America refers to some non-existent continental Supreme Court. That you are British does not mean you speak for all British (especially given the evidence to the contrary), and your anecdotal evidence amounts to very little when reliable sources say otherwise. Your personal experience is not a valid source per WP:NOR: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." - SudoGhost 22:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
In the example you gave, the use of the term 'America' is obviously not ambiguous and therefore its use does not prove anything. Honestly, I can't be arsed to find sources that would prove that 'America' is commonly used in the UK to describe the landmass however they do exist, and therefore the "statement is attributable, even if not attributed". Unless another Brit says otherwise, this is as per WP:NOR. If you look in any British Geographic school textbook you will find the term 'America' not 'Americas'. I know this from personal experience. I really don't have the time to prove to you that this is the case, but you are wrong and every Brit here knows you're wrong. Currently, my position is neutral as my reason to object was essentially with wikipedia policy however I seriously doubt you will be able to prove the USA article is the primary topic due to the fact that most people search the term 'US' or 'USA' rather then 'America' when looking for the USA article and there are many people who use the term to describe the land mass. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
So if you use America to describe the landmass, it's use is not ambiguous and supports what you say, but if a reliable source uses America to describe the country, it's use, which is also not ambiguous, somehow doesn't support anything you disagree with? Not by a long shot. If you're going to cite WP:NOR, read it, because it very clearly says that your personal experience means nothing. if you "don't have the time to prove" it, then we'll just have to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and use the sources that have been provided, which overwhelmingly supports the United States being the primary topic. Your comments have demonstrated that you are far from "neutral" and your comments not only have no basis in Wikipedia policy, but in fact are contradicted by policy. You believe your personal confirmation bias should speak louder than reliable sources, and that is not how Wikipedia works, as the flaw in such reasoning is self-evident. - SudoGhost 00:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying at all. In the example you gave the use of the term 'America' was not ambiguous due to the topic of the article. The inclusion of 'Barack Obama' in the title would make the majority of readers realise this. In my example [9], the term is also not ambiguous as you would not talk about the USA along side Eurasia, so again the majority of readers would realise this. I have never suggested that the USA isn't known as America in the UK, I'm saying it has two common meanings. I also now agree that the term 'the Americas' is used in the UK however I think this is only used when the use of the term 'America' would be ambiguous. If you find an example where the use of the term 'America' would be ambiguous as to whether it is referring to the USA or the landmass but it was referring to the USA then yes, that would suggest that 'America' is not commonly used to describe the land mass however I doubt you will. None of your evidence proves that 'America' is not used to describe the land mass in the UK, and myself, along with every Brit here knows that's not the case. You're basically using Wikipedia Policy to prove something that isn't true. I honestly think, you really don't [Inappropriate comment removed by the author] care about what's right, but instead just want to Americanise Wikipedia, because you don't like the fact that us Brits use a term (that obviously means a lot to you) in an alternative way. Lastly, my position is neutral, due to the fact that I do not think this decision should be made by vote, but instead by what is right in order to improve Wikipedia. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so you're apparently misunderstanding what's going on here. Nobody, at any point, came anywhere close to suggesting that America only refers to the United States. Not once. What is being said is that when reliable sources use the term America, they are almost always referring to the United States. There are instances where that is not the case, but those are few and far between, even in British reliable sources, this has been demonstrated. You saying you are "neutral" means about as much as you saying that editors are the only reliable sources; nothing. You have made your opinion very known and it is anything but "neutral" by any definition, not that this lack of being "neutral" means anything (do you think your opinion would mean more if you considered yourself neutral?) You're making a lot of unsubstantiated opinions about me when there's no basis in your wildly inaccurate claims. If you have nothing worthwhile to say about the RM, the answer is not to then attack those that disagree with you. - SudoGhost 15:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for misunderstanding. Regardless, common usage and usage in the media/'reliable sources' does not equal usage as a search query so the fact that the media/'reliable sources' use America only to refer to the USA does not prove that it is what most people searching the term are looking for. Whether or not you believe British Wikipedians that we commonly still use the term 'America' to describe the landmass, or you think that you know better from your 'reliable sources' is pretty much irrelevant. Unless you can prove that most search queries are looking for the USA article, there is no proven Primary Topic. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That's not something that can be proven on this or any other disambiguation page, not with the tools we have available to us. If you can find an ambiguous title that redirects to the primary topic that did something like what you're asking (by that I mean show a primary topic through search queries) I'd love to see it, but we can't prove what most search queries are looking for because there's no way to reliably do that. That, however, does preclude a primary topic as we have to go by what we have available to us, and those things support the move. - SudoGhost 16:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Most primary topics are chosen by the fact that there in an obvious primary topic which is agreed as per consensus. Even if it's original research, the lack of consensus is reasonably accurate evidence that there is not a primary topic. I think this is a situation in which Wikipedia:Ignore all rules should be used. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is determined by discussion based on guidelines and policies, not merely disagreeing for the sake of creating a lack of consensus or by citing WP:IAR just for the sake of ignoring consensus-based discussions and guidelines. WP:OR plays no part in determining consensus. - SudoGhost 17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The fact that many people oppose this move suggests that there is not a topic which has more traffic then every other topic combined. I'm citing WP:IAR because I honestly think following Wikipedia policies will cause a Primary Topic to be selected that doesn't have more traffic then every other topic combined. This therefore goes against the purpose of a Primary Topic and therefore is a perfectly valid reason to WP:IAR. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
So you think there is no policy-based reason to oppose this move? Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I think there are policy-based reasons to oppose this move, as stated above by me and other users however these are all controversial and therefore I'm giving a straight forward, non controversial reason to oppose as per WP:IAR, which is a policy-based reason, as WP:IAR is a policy. Regards, Rob (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I've given my opinion on this before several times. The only thing that has changed is that the traffic stats below have shown further evidence that the title is too ambiguous. There is no topic that is 'much more likely than all the rest combined'. The usage in other encyclopedias listed at the top of this request have been listed before and until there is something to overrule that (not Google results, and certainly not results that have been manipulated in a certain way), then the page should stay as is. Rennell435 (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Support It is running-away obvious that the primary topic, around the world, for the word "America" is the United States. Contrary to some statements here, there is no such continent as "America"; there are two continents, North America and South America, often called The Americas. America should redirect to United States, with a hatnote at the top saying "America redirects here; for other uses, see America (disambiguation)." Exactly as is done with other redirects which have a primary meaning as well as multiple other meanings; for examples see L.A. or The Strip. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Further comment. This discussion is verging on epic lameness. The simple question here is whether the United States article is so obviously what people searching for "America" want to see that it's worthwhile making people who are seeking something else click through an extra link (in a hatnote) to get to what they want. I don't think so, myself, but the heat being generated here suggests that people have something on their minds other than answering this particular question. Deor (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ambiguous. America going straight to United States is inaccurate. As a reference work, Wikipedia should represent what is correct, where what is correct is taken from reliable sources, and should not be so influenced by inaccurate usage. Where correct usage and common incorrect usage occur in parallel, the solution is to disambiguate.
Being an encyclopedia, it should take a historical perspective, not a current vernacular perspective. The ancient history, geography, European discovery and colonisation of America does not refer to the current world-dominating nation.
Technically, America is a single continent in the 4, 5, and 6 continent models of the world. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Some people opposing wont even accept that there is a 4, 5 and 6 continent model, which is important because it suggests that 'the Americas' and 'America' are used in different ways. 'the Americas' refers to two separate continents grouped together in one phrase and therefore can be used when describing the 7 continent model whereas 'America' refers to one continent and as you say is used in many other continent models. I agree that not giving a current vernacular perspective is important, and I also made a point on the fact that 'America' is colloquial for the USA whereas it's the actual name for a continent but many editors seem to think that the criteria stated on Wikipedia:Disambiguation are the only factors that decide a Primary Topic, which is not the case as it states 'There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is'. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In an encyclopaedia, it is incorrect to be inaccurate. An encyclopaedia needs more precision than common parlance. Anyone entering America into a bluelink needs to be informed that the nation is not properly, in formal terms, titled this, and that other significant usages exist. This is served by the dab page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You've still provided no basis for your claim that using "America" to mean the USA is "inaccurate". Indeed that's been repeatedly proved wrong by sources, including the ones I just linked to for you. You also appear to be unfamiliar with basic Wikipedia naming conventions (especially WP:COMMONNAME). The USA and most other articles aren't even titled by their full, formal names. Also, if the move occurs an "America" disambiguation page will still exist, with a link back to it prominently placed at the top of the United States article, similar to the Rome, Egypt, and China pages, all of which redirect to the modern city/nation first.VictorD7 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "Imprecise" only in the sense that there are multiple uses, as there are for every other disambiguation page, including the ones with primary topics. Nothing said here challenges the evidence showing that the USA is overwhelmingly the primary use of "America". People can click their way to the disambiguation page if necessary after arriving at the most sought after topic. VictorD7 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Using "America" to refer to the US isn't incorrect, but it is ambiguous out of context. When people search for "America" we have no way of knowing what the context is, or indeed if there is any, therefore we need to determine whether one particular use of the word "America" out of context is used more often than all the other uses combined. Every single bit of evidence given here shows that most people are looking for something other than the United States when searching for "America" out of context. It is therefor clear to those who understand what primary topic means that there is no primary topic or the term "America" used out of context. What the usage is when context is known is entirely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Every single bit of evidence? I don't see even one, would you care to give an example? I don't know what evidence you're looking at because the evidence given says the exact opposite, even given the context argument. - SudoGhost 14:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You didn't address my reply to you higher in the section, where I pointed out that you seem to have made some mistakes in your link count. The evidence I just posted and even your own user page link count evidence shows overwhelming primacy for "America" as the USA; significantly more than other uses combined. VictorD7 (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I've noticed that on Spanish language Wikipedia when you type in "America" it automatically redirects to the article about the continent. This is because, in Spanish, América refers to the continent and is rarely if ever used to refer to the United States. Accordingly, because America in English most often refers to the United States, I think a redirect to that page would be ok so long as it included a link to the disambiguation page and the disambiguation page continued to have a link to The Americas. At least the English language disambiguation page mentions that America may refer to The Americas. The Spanish language disambiguation page for América and the Estados Unidos page don't even acknowledge that the United States is commonly referred to as America (in English and other languages). TempDog123 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors. Currently there are many people opposing the existence of a Primary Topic for valid reasons and the discussion appears to be at a stalemate therefore consensus is unlikely to be achieved in support of the move. The Requested Move has been opposed, and should be closed. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, the mere fact that several posters oppose something doesn't constitute a valid reason for anything. This isn't a simple vote. Consensus is determined by evidence and rationales, with invalid ones disregarded. It has to be that way on Wikipedia, otherwise the site would be at the mercy of good faith but objectively wrong people, trolling, bigotry, and/or demonstrably stubborn irrationality. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that "America" is primarily used to refer to the USA, so the move should be made. VictorD7 (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Because there is no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors. This is not a standard across Wikipedia, but specific for this policy. You cannot dictate what a valid reason is for choosing a Primary Topic, reasons must be agreed by consensus. From what I can tell, a stalemate has been reached in which neither side can agree on reasons for determining whether a primary topic exists. Thus, the Requested Move has been opposed, and should be closed. Regards, Rob (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You already said that. Guidelines exist for determining primacy; they've been followed and overwhelming primacy has been firmly established. Decisions in almost every aspect of Wikipedia are made "by discussion among editors", so that claim doesn't mean anything. Such discussions are where evidence and arguments are presented. The alleged lack of "absolute rules" does not mean that some rationales aren't invalid (e.g. a respondent misunderstanding what the proposal even is, just spewing a bunch of insults, or presenting false evidence). The mere existence of opposition is not sufficient grounds for blocking a rational, evidence based move proposal. VictorD7 (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no single criterion for defining a Primary Topic. Many opposing editors have objected to the moved based on reasons not listed in the policy, but what are perfectly acceptable due to the fact that there are no absolute rules for determining whether a Primary Topic exists. Until editors can agree that these reasons are either 1. Irrelevant or 2. Not significant enough to suggest a Primary Topic doesn't exist, then there is no consensus. Editors supporting the move have disregarded these reasons because 'they're not part of a policy' even though there are no absolute rules for determining whether a Primary Topic exists. Due to the stalemate, and that there is no consensus as to whether there is a Primary Topic or not, the Requested Move has been opposed, and should be closed. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Disregarding invalid rationales isn't contingent on there being "absolute rules". When someone opposes a move out of personal preference or principle rather than constructing an argument against a use's primacy that's invalid, as it doesn't bear directly on the discussion at hand. When someone makes a factually false claim regarding evidence that's an invalid rationale. The guidelines allow for some flexibility in how to go about determining primacy, but no rational, evidence based arguments against the USA's primacy have been offered here despite this extensive discussion. That's telling. Therefore the move should be implemented. VictorD7 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
There are many reasonable reasons as to why there isn't a primary topic. Until editors can agree that these reasons are either 1. Irrelevant or 2. Not significant enough to suggest a Primary Topic doesn't exist, then there is no consensus. From what I have seen, opposing editors are simply disregarding valid reasons, or as you are, denying that they even exist. Even if the USA page is the most common topic by far, that doesn't mean it's automatically the Primary Topic. Other reasons need to be taken into account. An example of this is the term Apple being directed to the fruit rather then the company, even though the company is the most common topic. Regards, Rob (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, we've dismissed your non-evidentiary personal anecdotes and demonstrably false claims about British usage, objections from people who are unfamiliar with basic Wikipedia naming convention erroneously claiming that the redirect shouldn't occur because "America" isn't the country's full, formal name (as though it would matter with redirects anyway), people pointing out that multiple legitimate definitions exist as though we were talking about deleting the disambiguation page (we aren't), etc.. No rational, valid, evidence based argument disputing primacy has been presented. I haven't studied "apple" usage and don't have a strong opinion on how it should redirect, but one big difference is that you're comparing a basic, many centuries old English word with the proper name of a company that's only a few decades old. If Apple is still globally prominent a hundred years from now, and if Wikipedia still exists, things might be different, but even then it might require a decline in apple consumption or a new name for the fruit to justify a different redirect set up. Regardless, that example is a far cry from comparing two proper geographical names that share a word, both centuries old, but one of them now mostly just historical and occasional while the other is frequently used and overwhelmingly primary. Dare I say that the "America" usage case is more apples to apples. VictorD7 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible unintentional canvassing

I noticed something and wouldn't feel right if I didn't at least bring it up here so others can determine if this is an issue. I noticed that a particular ip user (who has already stated their opposition to this proposed move here), 76.65.128.222, posted messages in the talk pages of several wikiprojects and an article letting them know about this discussion on July 5. These include the following:

While I believe that this was done with good intentions, I think the particular balance of pages chosen to alert may have had the unintended effect of alerting people disproportionately more likely to oppose the move to the presence of this discussion. While I certainly see the logic in only alerting pages relating directly to the Americas, it is understood that generally speaking people within the Americas but outside of the United States are more likely to oppose the United States being considered the primary usage of "America". The user did not alert the wikiprojects of other continents and regions (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia) where people likely have different, yet equally relevant opinions on this matter (the readers of pages relating to the U.S. and/or the Americas are not limited to the American continents). And so, I think we may have had some unintentional Canvassing here (specifically Votestacking). The edits in question can be found near the middle of this contributions page. I'd like to hear other opinions on this. Note: I have alerted the ip user to this discussion. --Philpill691 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would the user need to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia? These continents are not in "America". In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
People in the Americas aren't the only ones who use the word "America". VictorD7 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The usage of "America" is up for discussion, see talk:America is the message I left. It is clearly neutral, it does not lean one way or another. I informed the USProject as well, which is where (USA) the majority of Wikipedia editors are from. And I informed the umbrella projects named "America", plus Geography project (seemed logical), and the Caribbean (an umbrella project in the Americas). As to why I didn't inform Asia, Europe, Africa, Sahul, they are not called "America", and I'd think that informing WPGeography would be enough. As to why I didn't inform each and every US state project, there's 50 of them, that's a lot of work (not counting the state projects outside of the US of A, but inside the Americas). If you have the time, go ahead and post notices to each and every state project. I did not inform each and every country project of the Americas either, only the USProject. Aside from USProject, Geography and NorthAmNative, the other projects are very low activity -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe the notifications you made were neutral, and I don't think any bad intentions were attached to your actions. However, there are few situations where it is beneficial to notify particular WikiProjects. In this instance, even without your notifications, there was likely to be ample participation in this move request given the broad nature of the request. With this subject being potentially political controversial, notifications of projects more inclined to vote one way (Latin American WikiProjects, the United States WikiProject) as opposed to just general projects (Geography, Disambiguation) are likely to shift the balance inappropriately. Also, as I'm sure you can tell, the projects you notified that are more inclined to oppose this request far outnumber those more inclined to support it (I find it odd that you notified Talk:Americas, but not Talk:United States, but that's beside the point).
Unfortunately, unless this article is moved, your actions -- unintentional as they were -- provide impetus for appeal (and, unfortunately, continuation of an already lengthy discussion). Nevertheless, I'll do my best over the next few hours to make a decision based on the information provided here. I'll do my best to take into account the revelation here (whether it does or does not have an effect) and consider whether that has an effect on the outcome. -- tariqabjotu 05:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think all that many editors pay attention to the Central/South American wikiprojects (several of them have discussions that died in 2011 still on their talk pages) so on balance, most of the editors should have come from the US and Geography projects (possibly NorthAmNative). -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Surely if anyone thinks there is an issue then quickly notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia and indeed Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, or Wikipedia:WikiProject China. 76.65.128.222 has a worthwile and conscientious habit of notifying related pages of moves, and FWIW in my observation in such activity doing what RM proposers have omitted. Good for him/her. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, no, I don't think that's true. I very quickly spotted people who participated in this discussion, for example, and then participated here. I'm not saying the notifications tainted the RM, but I don't think it's true they had no effect. -- tariqabjotu 06:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
That's NorthAmNative (one of the projects I pointed out that are active, and possibly a source of editors coming here) Though we ended up discussing pages other than this one, and how to rename Native American articles to include digits in their pagenames, and not this page. Though I do stand corrected on the possibility of participants from NorthAmNative, it is a certainty instead of a possibility. From the way the discussion at NorthAmNative progressed, I had gathered they didn't seem overly interested at the name of this page. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed solution

See #criteria for resolution of "temporary no consensus" close. -- tariqabjotu 18:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please let me know if any participants find this proposed solution amenable if and when this request move is shown to have no consensus.

Point the United States link on the America page to a redirect that goes to United States and that no other article would employ. (Something weird like USA2).

This would allow for the measurement of transit activity and likely resolve the issue after letting the experiment run for a agreeable time period (I’d suggest a month). If the number of page views for the redirect were 70% of the view stats for America then it would be safe to conclude that we are doing users a disservice by not redirecting. Likewise, if the stats showed closer to 50%, or lower, then it would show a fractured audience.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

At first I was going to say it wouldn't work since I was thinking redirects didn't count page views but apparently they do. I'm trying to think of a reason why that wouldn't work but I can't, that's a really good idea. Of course we'd need to include an editing note asking editors not to change it to the correct link so that it isn't constantly being changed (since I'd probably "correct" it if I didn't know why it was there), but it sounds good to me. - SudoGhost 17:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There are other reasons why people are opposing. Wait until there is a consensus on those reasons first. Rob (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

While there are other reasons, this is the one that really matters. If the United States isn't what people are looking for when they arrive at this page, wouldn't you want proof of that? - SudoGhost 18:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Support proposed solution This sounds like a good idea to get a measure of how often each link is used. --Philpill691 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I support the notion of some kind of testing and have been wondering about something like this since this discussion started, though one concern I have is the fact that when I hit a disambiguation page I often type something else into the search engine real fast rather than scan the links to find the proper one to click (sometimes I'll click on a link), so if other people are anything like me this could give us a skewed impression unless we rig special redirects for the other items on the page to make it an apples to apples test. Also, I think 50%+ (of the total link clicks) would be plenty to demonstrate primacy since the guidelines talk about making such a designation when it's searched for more than the other items combined. VictorD7 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) This approach has been used previously. At the moment, I can only think of Lincoln, but there have been others. I'd suggest using unique redirects for both the US and the Americas to have better comparative data. I.e., out of all the traffic to the disambiguation page at America, having unique redirects for both will allow us to gauge how many of those clicked the link to go on the the U.S. article and how many clicked the link to go on to the Americas article, as well as by subtraction, how many clicked another link or simply dead-ended at the disambiguation. Since those unique redirects should not be linked from anywhere else and should be relatively unlikely to stumble upon, it is reasonable to conclude the traffic for those redirects represent choices made from the disambiguation page. A criticism of the method is that it does not very well account for readers who choose to take a different path. I.e., enter a different term in the search box from the disambiguation page or just give up and use Google. older ≠ wiser 18:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America_(disambiguation)/Archive_4&oldid=1140199297"