Template talk:Regions of the world

Naming African regions

Editors of the 'Region' template,

Wikipedia ought to take a more consistent approach to the naming conventions used for the regions of the African continent. Officially, they are Northern, Western, Eastern, Southern, and Central, and should be recognized accordingly.

Redirects are a useful way of accounting for 'popular' terms, but any work that purports to have encyclopedic worth needs to take a more rigorous approach. Take the use of 'America', for example, while most people do associate this with 'The United States of America', it is inaccurate on grounds of denotation, hence Wikipedia’s disambiguation page for it. Another good example is the distinction between 'South Africa', the country, and 'Southern Africa', the region.

Now aside from the official name of a Wikipedia page itself, users will always be at the utmost liberty to use any term they so choose and according to their personal style: Western Africa of West Africa, for instance, but Wikipedia should, at least, retain the best term for its official page designation.

I hope that this clarifies the rationale for making the names of the African regions more consistent... Lucidity 07:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean officially? Regions don't have official names. Wikipedia policy is to use the most common unambiguous name for articles, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you disagree with this policy discuss it there, don't begin changing it unilaterally. - SimonP 07:51, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree with your argument on regions listed for Africa. I use Great Lakes (Africa) and Horn of Africa a great deal. The first is a region combining elements of Central and Eastern, while the term "greater Horn" is a nice way of getting a subset of East Africa. That said, the Horn isn't listed on the template and I'm not sure I've ever heard of Somalia, for example, being in East Africa. The East African Community certainly doesn't seem to think so. - BanyanTree 01:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not "scientific"

Let me just voice my concern about the excess compartmentalization of the world in a manner that doesn't seem to resemble a single scientific approach. --Shallot 20:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean? The regions listed aren't scientfic?

Additions

Is there any particular reason the following designations were not used?

• America: North America, Patagonia, South America
• Asia: Near East
• Other: The Mediterranean

I realize packing in every possible region is impossible, but I wager these usages are far more common than, for instance, Northeast Africa (and why Northeast instead of Horn of Africa) or North Asia (yet no Northeast Asia, which is a familiar zone to frequent flyers). - choster 5 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)

Removing Congo

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

Reorganisation of template

Hello! To rectify the apparent imbalance in the categorising of various continents and subregions in this template (e.g., Europe/Asia, yet Americas), I've reorganised it to consolidate Europe and Asia into Eurasia. Another way to do this is to separate out as follows:

• Americas: North America...; South America...
• Eurasia: Asia...; Europe...

I'm fine with either or, but a melange of the two doesn't make sense. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 12:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Kurdistan

This is a highly contraversial ethnic region with undefined borders. Basicaly it can occupy the entier galaxy r could be the size of a pea. Borders are determined by the artistic nature of the person drawing. Article displays the flag as well as other goodies of the proposed kurdish nation.

I hence believe its presence is inaproporate on this template. Put the kurdistan article in contrast with other articles and you will see what I mean. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature: Congo Region and Middle Africa

Today I created the article Congo (region) mainly because I felt that it was missing from Template:Regions of the world. Only afterwards did I discover that Congo already exists, but that this article seems to restrict itself to dealing solely with the two Congos, and not the wider, vaguer subregion. What is the preferred option now: should Congo me merged with Congo (region) and redirect to Congo (disambiguation) instead? Please have your say here. Thanks.

And a related issue: I would argue that the UN designation Middle Africa - which currently redirects to Central Africa - is the least ambiguous name for the region, as listed at Template:Africa, just like Southern Africa is used to effectively disambiguate from South Africa. Please respond here. Thanks! // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 10:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I support using Middle Africa, though acknowledge that Central Africa might prevail in common usage (hence perhaps retaining it where it is).

The topic matter in Congo (region), however, is (should be) covered in Congo – read the hatnote – and seems an unnecessary duplication; the former should redirect to the latter. Without objection, I will tweak and redirect. I also think we have to draw a line with the regions included in the template ... and wouldn't lose sleep if the Congo (and other arguably 'atomic' regions) were nixed. Perhaps it would be better to include only the (top-level) UN subregions, and or to segregate the UN subregions from others of varied definition? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I truly feel that Congo is a portion of the African continent on par with (historic) Guinea, (the) Sudan and the Horn of Africa. I also realize that there may arguably be many more such regions whose names and approximate locations and boundaries are found only in the minds of people, but that these definitions and delimitations find their way into the names used by international organizations and corporations (e.g. newspapers that in their very name convey a message about which geographical zone they intend to cover). Ideas? // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Feelings ain't enough just yet, methinks. ;) As above, I think we should refrain from including the kitchen sink in the template and only do so if usage, currency, and citations can support it. None of the compendiums in my possession, for instance, note the Congo region – though I obviously don't deny it – but emphasise the two titular countries and (importantly) the Congo River ... which actually is the true predicate for everything around it. Can you cite anything? Thus, I think Congo can – and has – been retrofitted to deal with this and human geographic elements can be included elsewhere (e.g., Culture of Africa or similar). I've redirected Congo (region) for now, but please feel free to build it and maybe include it later.

This also applies to some other regions in the current template and I think it can be pruned of them. I'm quite surprised, actually, that Guinea (region) has been developed as much as it has, while Sudan (region) is a shell of what it can be. And both the Sudan and the Horn of Africa are far more prevalent. Importantly, none of these cite sources.

I guess my main jist is this: what should be included in this template? I'd advocate for including just common and top-level geographic and geopolitical regions in the template (viz. those that can be cited and are agreeable, like the UN subregions), or stratifying them somehow. Otherwise, it'll get too unwieldy. However, I'm somewhat easy on this, but less so on the issue below. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just reorganised the template according to a two-line system, where for each region X, the first line lists subregions identified by (usually primary) compass point; and the second line lists the other subregions (usually smaller than those on the first line). I think this helps prevent the template from becoming cluttered. What think ye?  Regards, David Kernow 14:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Great. Given that the UN scheme for subregions largely coincides with the revised template and cardinal directions noted (with few exceptions, like the Caribbean), and consistent with prior discussions and a quest to balance geographic content in Wp, I've tweaked it accordingly. I'm wondering, however, if the formatting can be improved somehow: the template now looks far too ... high.

Moreover, I've equilibrated the Americas with Eurasia and split out the continents in the Western hemisphere. There's little reason to not do so, and (as above) for balance this is actually required, but I acknowledge that the region of Latin America (straddling both) might be problematic within the current layout. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no sources to cite right off the top of my skull. Part of this crux lies in the definition of a (sub-)region: Many of the more informal terms used in public discourse on both formal and informal levels to describe a certain area have no set boundaries; they have only a core and an optional/arguable periphery. Nonetheless, these terms are used and they mean something to the jouranlists and politicians and artists who use them, and to their audiences. (Phew, my talk is getting increasingly philosophical here). And, on the other hand, some formally designated regions or clusters of states and other entities (such as Western Asia) remain poorly used in spite of their unequivocal, unbiased and descritive nature. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 14:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

AOK. Build the article with that sourcing in mind. I guess my main point is not overloading the template. Perhaps we should include a link in the template to informal regions while pruning it of excess? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

EPA: Regarding inclusion of non-UN informal regions, see below. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 15:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Southern Asia/South Asia

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

Titles of regional articles noting direction

Similarly, I'm of the very strong belief that – unless there's sufficient reason otherwise – all sub/regional articles (e.g., for continents) should be entitled at "cardinal directionern foo", not merely "cardinal direction foo" for consistency. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Is common usage such as "West Africa" rather than "Western Africa" sufficient reason otherwise...?  Unsure, David Kernow 14:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

DK: I'm unsure. I guess we could reverse the question: how often does one hear East Europe or North Europe? Take a glance at the subregions for Africa, for example, and it strikes me as mildly odd if not inconsistent (for obvious reasons, though) that Southern Africa is amidst other regions of simpler title. As well, given that North and South America (continents) are almost universally known by those terms, I suggest moving subregional articles as above more for consistency and, to a lesser degree, to obviate ambiguity. Thoughts? Also, see below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I, just like yourself EPA, am hugely enthusiastic about using UN-designated subregions, which means my own personal preference for [card.dir.]-ern rather than [card.dir.]-Ø. This said, there are some forms which do differ in meaning/usage (cf North vs Northern America). I have no easy answer for the less rigidly defined (but not necessarily less used) names for informal regions, such as Indochina or "Pacific Rim".

As for rearranging the template hierarchically or topically, that makes sense. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 14:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

BA: see above. As well, perhaps we should merely include a link to the article regarding informal regiona and only include agreeable/prevalent/systematic ones? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Let's promote/highlight the UN-designated subregions then under their proper continents, arranged in a hierachical tree based on this familiar scheme. Yes? Then all the informal, but commonly used, regions with variable definitions can be added underneath in italics to denote their fuzziness, while at the same time acknowledging their extensive use. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 15:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes: I think the current (restructured) template largely reflects this now, though I wish it was less vertically challenged and it could probably beg for some formatting improvements. I thought about italicising the informal regions, but decided against it because I wonder if another editor would wonder WTF? I'm easy, though. Have at it! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Goodie. They could be further categorized as either A) continents, B) UN regions or C) other regions. The last category is the one most vulnerable to edit wars over what's in and what's left out. For example, why include the Baltic region while excluding the Barents region.

The UN, as we know, divides the world thusly: World

• Africa
  • Eastern Africa
  • Middle Africa
  • Northern Africa
  • Southern Africa
  • Western Africa
• Americas
  • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • Caribbean
    • Central America
    • South America
  • Northern America
• Asia
  • Central Asia
  • Eastern Asia
  • Southern Asia
  • South-Eastern Asia
  • Western Asia
• Europe
  • Eastern Europe
  • Northern Europe
  • Southern Europe
  • Western Europe
• Oceania
  • Australia and New Zealand
  • Melanesia
  • Micronesia
  • Polynesia

It makes a careful point of noting that The continent of North America... comprises Northern America..., Caribbean..., and Central America. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 15:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the current template simply/already reflects all of this and, yet, is a balanced approach to Eurasia/Americas. (You're also missing Southern Africa above, which I've added.) The only deficiencies are regions (geo or otherwise) that traverse continents: Latin America and Caucasus, even, arguably Middle East and Southeastern Asia. Given that LA is more a sociopolitical delineation (with varied definition), I don't think that should trump universal geographic, continental distinctions (North/South America). And though I'm loathe to do so, perhaps we should consider adding regions in more than one continent to each of them? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think that the current template does attempt to address this in a balanced manner, but, as per above, I wonder about the subjectivity of inclusion/exclusion in the third category of regions. Who is to judge whether one such region is eligible for inclusion and on what grounds? In many cases this gets difficult to assess and justify, and some category 3 regions - new term! =] - are defined by physical geography while others are macro-economic in nature. I totally concur about North and South America (as discussed elsewhere) // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 16:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

From the get-go, this has been my point. I was reticent to nix Congo (region) because of that, but where does one draw the line? For now the current version is fine to me. However, there's room for improvement: perhaps we should nix all of the 'category 3' hurricanes, including only the UN sub/regions in a revised template but providing links to articles (like to informal regions or perhaps anew, like Americas (terminology)) that summarise regions on each continent? That would allow everyone to have their cake and eat it too. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: The template could stay as it is now (which is fine by me), or it could be clearly divided (with a thick line!) into a "UN" section and an "other" section. But then a number of the "other" regions would more or less coincide with the UN subregions, just by a different name... Example: Turkestan ≈ Central Asia, but not quite. Siberia ≈ Northern Asia (per UN in Eastern Europe), but not quite. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 16:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The status quo or mild variation (with lines) is seemingly sufficient. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Southwest Asia / Western Asia

Currently the template has [[Southwest Asia|Western Asia]]. Is that correct? From reading the above I'm guessing the display text is set according to one preference/standard and the page name is set according to some other preference/standard. Can anyone clarify? Ewlyahoocom 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct: to forego ambiguity and as part of a neutral attempt to organise said content, the UN scheme for geographic subregions has been adopted here (particularly for entries on the first line of each continent) and elsewhere, whereby Western Asia is indicated (which redirects to Southwest Asi). This also precludes apparent inconsistency in the template: e.g., Southwest Asia, yet Eastern Europe. Personally, I'd prefer if the article (and others like it) were moved to the UN entitlements, but one can't have everything just yet. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Australasia vs Austrailia

I've been looking at the template:region and the template:continent and they seem similar enough that with a few additions to the region template, the continent template would become redundant and could be discontinued. The inspiring thought came when I saw Antarctica was a featured article and thought the other continents should be as well, and while browsing over Africa saw three geographic tables which just screamed "clean me up!" Xaxafrad 04:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Continent features continents only, whereas Template:Regions of the world features continental divisions, subdivisions, etc. For now, I'd say keep both, as this seems a useful distinction. Not quite sure what/where your African inspiration lies...?  Regards, David Kernow 06:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Latin America

Isnt it superflouous to link to Latin America twice from the North AND South America regions? Is Central America "good" enough to have it's own category, or should it be deleted from one of the Americas? Geographically, I would place it in North, but culturally, in South. Any other thoughts? Xaxafrad 05:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Latin America appearing twice, I think it's because it straddles North (well, Central) America and South America. Re Central America, so far as I'm aware the Americas are usually first divided into North America and South America, then into smaller regions which include Central America as part of "North" America. I agree, though, that there's much to be said for an initial three-way division of the Americas (into North, Central and South America) but I don't think that's the norm... Anyone else know more?  Regards, David Kernow 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

A proposed redesign

I have created a redesign at Template:Regions_of_the_world/Temp as an attempt to solve the UN/not-UN debate and also to make the template a bit easier to use. The location pictures have had been sacrificed for space but most people know where Africa is anyway. Thoughts? Comments? Andeggs 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it! Note, however, that "Latin America" is used in the UN context as an intermediate grouping of three of the subregions proper; it is not a UN subregion in its own right. Also, "Australia and New Zealand" is the name of one single UN subregion covering three seperate entities. See also this table. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know - slight problems, although I think the Latin America one is the most pressing. Thing is, to accommodate the UN fully we need an extra column (so that the Americas section is split) and this makes it much more untidy. Again I would suggest that sacrifices have to be made for simplicity. Once pages for all UN subregions have been created, this template could be tweaked accordingly. Andeggs 16:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm liking your proposal better and better by the minute! However, I disagree that entirely separate articles need to be created for the UN subregions, since these are already duly mentioned in seperate sections in their respective articles (or at least more or less duly...). But since Latin America is not a subregion, should it be included in the template at all? BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm; I'm unsure this is a problem that needs to be solved ... if even there is one. I prefer the current template – I'm all for highlighting and using the UN scheme to organise this and that, but I think the current sublime segregation of sub/regions is better than the proposed arrangement that cleaves regions and duplicates over-arching ones (e.g., Americas) while omitting others (e.g., Europe, North America). The current one – by keeping things somewhat non-descript yet organised – mitigates potential accusations of undue weight in highlighting the UN or any one scheme. In addition, the 'UN' regions are not limited to the UN (i.e., they are in common usage) and may have interpretations that differ (e.g., Western Europe). Moreover, the maps aid in understanding.

Lastly, I utterly oppose creating dedicated articles for each of the UN subregions: the current sub/regional articles already treat this information, comparing and contrasting (if needed) with usual or common reckonings for these conceptual constructs. It's counterproductive to create article forks to house information that should reside in one spot for the benefit of users. Dedicated lists and categories should be considered instead. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How about having two templates that link to each other, one that follows the UN/non-UN distinction and the current template?  {{Hidden}} could then be used to offer users the option to see/use either or both. I'd also retain the location pictures as they help distinguish which set of links to read through to find a particular subcontinent/region/etc. Regards, David Kernow 00:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've got to disagree with you David. My over-riding concern is that templates are clear, easy-to-use, navigational tools - even if they occasionally compromise accuracy or NPOV to do so. Lots of children and new users are going to be navigating the country/continent pages and in my opinion, having Show/Hide templates which repeat each other's material will be immediately confusing.

On the NPOV point, Pluribus, which is a very interesting one, I don't think we will ever escape it. Nationalists, colonialists and expansionists, etc. will no doubt disagree with the current divisions. Think for example of Pan-Africanism. To embrace the UN classification is a little POV, I'll admit, but at least it allows users to navigate the articles with ease. In those articles they can then learn about finer POV points. I think you are no probably right that there is no need to create UN subregion articles. However I do think this template's design is a problem to be solved.

I have created a new version (with the maps back in) at Template:Regions_of_the_world/Temp2. Again, I'd again appreciate comments (and edits if possible). Ta Andeggs 06:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Re making templates clear, easy-to-use navigational tools, I'd say the return of the location pictures certainly helps. On the cosmetic side, would you mind if the (non-aligned) colons were removed?  Thanks for your work, David Kernow 13:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually tend to think that adopting the UN scheme, given the absence of a salient alternative, is quite impartial; however, some think of it to the contrary for whatever reason.

In any event, I disagree that the current design is problematic and the proposed template does not allay any of the concerns cited and prompts added ones. The current one, in the least, proceeds from larger to smaller without splitting hairs unnecessarily. The proposed template is IMO an ineffective navigational tool, not at all intuitive, and flawed at its root. In it, there (remain) no mentions of various continents despite traditional and common notions to the contrary (e.g., Encyclopædia Britannica) and segregates regions rather haphazardly (e.g., the UN scheme also demarcates the continent North America as including Northern America, Central America, and the Caribbean) ... thereby seeming rather weasely. And, again, they are not solely UN regions but ones that are commonly known. To use an adage: if it ain't broke, don't fix it ... and even if it is, the proposed template isn't the solution. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of pushing this too far and making myself a few enemies, I have created one last design for your consideration. This incorporates both the UN system and the desire to have the world's continents included. It also includes the world's oceans which are unduly missing lacking in the current template.

Most fundamentally I have removed all non-UN links. This is radical but I think it's the only way of keeping a hold on this template which just seems to grow without limit. How can we justify including Benelux and not Kazakh Steppes? Guinea (region) and not North China Plain? Levant and not Midwestern United States? The only way is through dispute on this talk page (e.g. over Congo (region)) which is prone to domination by conservatives. If large informal regions deserve a mention then this page should be linked to and improved (as suggested by others above).

There are limits to all designs of this nature but I think the ones in Temp3 are manageable. Most significantly I believe sticking points remain over the handling of Latin America and Northern America. My argument is that we should strive for a neat, workable navigation template by overcoming these problems rather than lumbering on with the current unworkable, biased and down-right ugly version. ;-) Andeggs 15:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current template is becoming (if not already) large and the criteria for including subcontinental (sub)regions probably too woolly. Perhaps it may never be anything but very woolly, in which case a solution may be to adopt Andeggs' Temp3 template but make the links to subcontinents links to lists of subcontinental regions, including a color-coded image of each continent/subcontinental area on each "List of regions in X" page. Starting from some of the blank maps available at the Commons, I'd happily volunteer to create/adapt such images, on an as-and-when basis.

In the meantime, however, thanks to Andeggs for his efforts and obvious thought about this template. Best wishes, 17:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Weighing in rather late regarding this, I don't see what the problem is with the current template: aesthetics aside (which I don't necessarily agree with), it is navigable, functional, structured, yet inclusive. How is the current template unworkable? The proposed Temp3 template, and predecessors, are too simplistic and create added problems. I share concerns expressed by others about the exclusion or the consolidation of the Americas (like, where is North America, which differs from Northern America) while splitting out Europe/Asia – that isn't biased?

In summary: the current version may not be ideal, but the proposed versions are even less palatable. However, I also thank Andeggs etc. in efforts to improve the template. A the 0th | talk | 10:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As well, I think the suggestion to include oceans is a great idea! I will incorporate this into the current template. A the 0th | talk | 10:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Never too late for more points of view, A the 0th– thanks for your interest!

Thinking of similar navigational templates, I feel the current template is too bulky. Taking Africa as an example, would a solution be to convert the ordinal links in the first line ("Central Africa", "Eastern Africa", etc) into links to pages such as "List of regions in Central Africa", "List of regions in Eastern Africa", etc and then move the links on the second line ("Great Lakes", "Guinea", "Horn of Africa", etc) out of the template to the relevant lists– then do the same for the Americas and Eurasia?  It might be easier to convert Andeggs' Temp3 to achieve the same. Either way, I feel links to regions such as "Great Lakes", "Patagonia", "Anatolia", "Benelux", "Kazakh Steppes", etc are probably best kept one link away from the template. Regards, David Kernow 12:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and encouragement! I don't share the feeling that the current template is bulky (though maybe some whitespace can be removed from it): the current template seems a balance between top-level regions and smaller ones without getting too detailed or oversimplifying notions. Regions are conceptual constructs and, thus, vary depending on source and even on user. And the 'UN' regions above are not just those indicated by the UN but in common usage. And what of others: foe example, surely the Middle East deserves inclusion, or some could argue that? I feel if the template is pruned, as proposed, someone will liberally add more regions to it anyway. And if this template's edit history is any indication, the template currently seems rather manageable.

The idea of having articles about subregions within regions (and linked appropriately) is interesting, but this seems a make-work project for not what: most of these sub/regions are already listed in the that article or (if not) should be added to it. A the 0th | talk | 13:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd only prune the template by shifting subregions into lists if there were a clear and consensual method to do so, but I agree that's less rather than more likely. I'm happy for the template to stay in its current form if that's where a consensus lies. I suspect any ideas on trimming the whitespace (in the bottom rh corner) would probably compromise the one-(super)continent-per-line format that currently works well, so I'd probably even prefer to keep that too. (However, any ingenious ideas gratefully heard!)  Best wishes, David Kernow 17:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A the 0th is a sockpuppet of E Pluribus Anthony as established by CheckUser (Thanks for wasting our time.) This does not make his/her arguments invalid but it does mean there is less opposition to the proposed redesign than first appears. Perhaps, indeed, it is ready to be implemented? Am I correct in thinking David Kernow and BigAdamsky support this? Cheers Andeggs 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes... Disappointing news about E Pluribus Anthony/A the 0th... Meanwhile, though, I'm happy for Temp3 to be given a try, perhaps with the "links to lists of subregions" suggested above...?  Regards, David Kernow 02:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - is annoying people are like that isn't it! I quite like your list of subregions idea but it does create a fair amount of work before this template can be changed. Perhaps we could focus our efforts on ensuring the subregions that will be deleted from here are prominantly linked from the existing region pages. I'm sure all of them have links to the subregions somewhere but it might be worth ensuring they are in the first few paragraphs. Andeggs 06:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind waiting a day or so, I should be able to make the time to create these lists...?  Yours, David 13:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say dump the "UN system" and replace it with a more natural one. Why for instance Central Europe is not included? I'm personally interested as at various times my home town has been considered a part of Eastern, Western and even Northern Europe, yet it's was in the Central Europe all the time. //Halibutt 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the proposed template. I think we should use the most commonly known subdivisions of the world. For example if a user is looking for North America they will not find it! Instead they will go to "Northern America" and for example Mexico is not included there, and almost every person in the world knows that Mexico is in North America. If a user is looking for Central America, he or she will surely will find the info with no problems. We should list the regions as internationally known and used. The UN subdivision is not common and as stated by the UN it is used ONLY for statistical convinience.AlexCovarrubias 05:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Northern/North America

I replaced Northern America with North America. It doesn't make sense for this template to lack a link to North America, and the term "Northern America" is by comparison quite obscure. I am aware that including Central America and North America causes some overlap of coverage, but it would be even worse to leave out the article at North America. I believe that including North, Central, and South America on the template is the best configuration, with the fewest faults. --Yath 06:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have reverted this to "Northern" as per discussions above. It seems that most people agree that it is least conflictual if the template follows the UN system even though this excludes "North America". Note that the first few lines of the page on Northern America does link to the constituent countries so this system is navigationally efficient. Thanks Andeggs 22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the above discussion shows any consensus for a total adherence to the UN system, just that the UN system is a useful guide. Keeping "Northern America" is both silly and violates the basic Wikipedia policy of using common names. - SimonP 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, we should not use the term "Northern America" for various reasons, mainly because it is used by the UN only for statistical convinience under an economic point of view. The most world-wide known educational systems divides the Americas in North, Central and South. Although "North America" includes the countries of Central America, a clarification should be made in the Article "Central America" to inform that some countries teach that Central America is a subdivions of the North American continent. AlexCovarrubias 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am adding a link to "North America" because the UN system also divides the Americas in North and South. Commonly a person will be looking for the most used division of the Americas, this includes North America also. If a person is looking for the another UN subdivision called "Northern America", they will find it there also. AlexCovarrubias 23:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Having both Northern and North America seams absurd. I understand the previous version was too big, but it better described the regions of the world. UN system, based in economics, is not necesarily better. What about having "North America (Central America)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianocecowski (talk • contribs)

Exactly, I think its silly to have North and Northern America, or do you think we should include South and Southern America??, most people around the world divide the Americas/America, into 4 simple regions: North America, Central America, the Caribbean and South America, just because the UN includes the region called "Northern North America, doesn't mean that its the most appropriate way to divide it. Supaman89 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

One of many regional systems

I have no major problem with this template except the tacit assertion that these are THE regions of the world rather than just one classification among many. An encyclopedia, as wikipedia is supposed to be, has the potential to come across as authoritative and objective, and care should be taken, I think, to make sure readers know something like a list of regions of the world is a generalized classification scheme with a specific point of view, and that other equally valid systems exist.

What I mean is, this template's system is a fine system of (relatively large) regions from the point of view of Political geography. Of course there are other branches of geography (see Template:Geography topics). From the viewpoint of Cultural geography one might argue for different regions. I suspect most of the criticisms about this template relate to people approaching it from a political or a cultural point of view, as these are perhaps the two most common ways people think about the world and its regions. Some other common ways of thinking about the world and its regions include the viewpoints of Economic geography (example region, "NAFTA"), Environmental geography ("Amazon rainforest"), Biogeography ("ecoregions"), Geomorphology ("Appalachian Mountains"), Climatology ("the Horse latitudes"), and so on. And each of these points of view will result in radically different "regions of the world". Pfly 07:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Pfly, I think; how about amending the template's name and title to something like "Geopolitical regions of the world"...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with this too. We could be even blunter and call it "Geopolitical regions (according to the United Nations)".Andeggs 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I prefer keeping "of the world"... I volunteer to wait a day or so (in case anyone else passes by with an objection or alternative) and then rename. David (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Too many regions?

Hy (first post here) I have been improving the articles Western Europe and Eastern Europe and I've been watching at this particular template. I'm afraid that many of the regions which are slowly appearing are slowly spoiling the whole template. I mean Latin Europe is at most a cultural region and not a geographical one. Then we have Latin America. Now we have Slavic Europe. How much longer until we have Celtic Europe, Germanic Europe, etc (and all the conflict that will appear?). If we add to that all the other cultures (on all the other continents) I predict a very bad time for this template. IMHO we should only keep the geographical regions and simply remove all the cultural ones. Hey, I like to be honest. Flamarande 12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Flamarande. I couldn't agree more with you, there's a real danger of the template becoming unmanageable. A while back we had similar problems (see discussion above) and implemented this version. The only worthwhile addition to it that I can see is that of a Show/Hide facility.

An alternative approach is to recast this template as being the United Nations regions of the world, since they have classification system in theory agreed by all its members (and therefore fairly NPOV). I would be happy with that but there would then there would be an implicit endorsement of the UN. Andeggs 11:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Eurasian

"Eurasian" leads to the article Central Asia. What has Central Asia do to with European geography and/or culture? If you care to read the article Russia it says quite clearly that Russia is a transcontinental country (i.e.: a country with parts in both continents). I propose that either someone finds a better article and links it to (something to do with Europe) or failing that it should be removed altogether. Flamarande (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Central Asia is sometimes considered part of Europe under the umbrella of Greater Europe. Jkliajmi (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure if agree with that (Central Asia) but as I'm not intent in imposing my personal opinion in this matter perhaps we should use the 'Greater Europe' article instead. At least it also includes Greenland (geographically located in North America) and a few others. If you truly want to include all regions/countries with cultural ties with Europe use the proper article (i.e.: the so-called "Greater European sphere of influence"). Flamarande (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean. Perhaps if you carry out the changes on the article, we can see how we can proceed from there? :) Jkliajmi (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the changes make sense. I guess it avoids ambiguity. Jkliajmi (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think that the map in that article presents some problems (it includes Jordan, and some "suspect" countries in Asia). But that is not a matter of concern for this template. To be safe I'm going to include the proper requests for improvement in the article. Flamarande (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Central Asian places like Afghanistan, Tibet, and Xinjiang that have nothing to do with Europe should not be dubbed Eurasian. Please cite sources that actually refer to Central Asia and Eurasia interchangeably. I am reverting unref'ed edits. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither Afghanistan, Tibet, or Xinjiang have been placed under Europe. Please actually read the map. 78.146.17.244 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But those places are not Eurasian. By Central Asia being called Eurasia, you are calling those places Eurasian. Please cite sources indicating that Central Asia and Eurasia are used interchangeable. Until you do so, it is OR. If there are no cited sources in 24 hours, I will revert the edits once again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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