Jump to content

Talk:America (disambiguation)/Archive 6

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

Requested move 10 July 2015

The following is a closed 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 a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Convincing argument made that the US is the primary topic for this title. Number 57 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

America → America (disambiguation) – I find this to be a certain absurdity. In English, when one writes "America", one means the "United States of America". There is no ambiguity, and said usage is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Usage in Spanish &c. should not dictate usage on the English Wikipedia, per WP:USEENGLISH. Can we please fix this? Let's redirect America to United States and place this page at America (disambiguation). This absurdity has gone on long enough. RGloucester — ☎ 06:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

See also: Talk:America/Archive 2#Requested move, Talk:America/Archive 3#Requested move: America (disambiguation) and Talk:America/Archive 4#Requested move. GregKaye 5:40 am, Yesterday (UTC−4) adding hatnote out of chronological sequence.
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not decided by usage alone, you have to take into account long-term significance. Diego (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
"Long-term significance" also supports the move, so that doesn't change anything. America has been used almost overwhelmingly to refer to the United States for at least the past hundred years, I don't think it can honestly be argued that this kind of time frame isn't long-term. - Aoidh (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The point of long-term significance is not that the topic has existed for a long time, it needs to be the only term with such "enduring notability and educational value" over all the others for applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; and clearly America the continent has comparable value in that regard. There are two topics with long-term significance, so neither of them can be the primary topic. So no, that criterion doesn't support the move. Diego (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The only problem is that what you're saying isn't how long-term significance works on Wikipedia. You're claiming that "There are two topics with long-term significance, so neither of them can be the primary topic." Where is the consensus or guideline that supports that claim? Because that certainly isn't what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is saying. Usage wise, America referring to the United States is overwhelmingly the primary topic, no question. And if, as you're saying, there is no primary topic for long-term significance, then the United States is the primary topic as it is the only one that meets both of those criteria, as America referring to the landmass only (arguably) meets the second, and it isn't the only one that does. More importantly, as you yourself said, it is the topic that readers are looking for, so accessibility also supports the move. However, I don't see anywhere in any of the discussions that it's been established that using America to refer to the landmass has any long-term significance. Long-term use, sure, but significance? I doubt it. I see past significance (before around 1778), but continued, long-term significance? Past significance and long-term significance are not the same, and I don't see any case for the latter. So if you're suggesting that the only thing opposing the move is a claim of long-term significance that hasn't been actually shown, that only supports the move. - Aoidh (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"...if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term", this is where policy says that you need to compare the notability and educational value of all the topics, and one of them needs to have substantially more of it in order to be the primary topic. I'm certainly not saying that "the only thing opposing the move is a claim of long-term significance" (lack of consensus is certainly a bigger policy-based argument), though it seems to me that all the supports are themselves based ultimately on the single argument of a primacy of usage, thus disregarding the rest of the policy.

But the argument of "usage" in the "supports" is based on the volume of an informal meaning of the term in common parlance, where WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rather talks of being "more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"), and we can see by the statistics of access to the DAB links (here and here) that "United States" is not much more likely to be sought than all the other combined (it's 4 to 1 at most, much less than what we have required at other move discussions). And IIRC none of the support not-votes have yet argued that usage is the only factor that should be taken into account for some unexplained reason, when policy directly disregards any single criterion as being dominant. The supporters of the move have not shown any hard evidence of how usage has been regarded by reliable sources comparatively for both major meanings, they merely assert lots of "obvious" and "certains" and "no questions" that lack any external supporting weight behind their assertions. Meanwhile, evidence for the ongoing significance of the "America" meaning as a continent includes at least the following:

  • "America" is described as a continent by the following modern, recent editions of these dictionaries and encyclopedias: six editions of Oxford, two by Columbia, and one of the Australian National Dictionary, Chambers, Encarta, Macquarie, Webster, and World Book Encyclopedia.
  • Google N-gram viewer shows comparable results for "America continent" and "America country" in the same order of magnitude throughout history for both terms, and that usage is increasing for both. If we accept the variations "American continent" and "American country", the trend is even reversed, with the reference to the continent being much more common even as of today. This is enough to disregard any notion that the association of "America" with the continent is a fringe happenstance, or that it belongs only to the past.

Some more examples of non-trivial usage as a continent, compiled by SamEV (I'm sure there will be lots more in the archives of Talk:America and Talk:Americas):

  • The United States' own Library of Congress uses "America" for the hemisphere in this work from 2005.[1], [2]
  • The Vatican Museum website uses "America" for the Western Hemisphere.[3]. Papal visit to "America"; homily in Mexico][4]
  • This BBC story has "Americas" in its title, but speaks of the possible discovery of "America" by the Chinese.[5]
  • "Eco-Schools in America" (Bahamas, Brazil, and Chile are the countries specifically mentioned)[6]
  • "Historically, the southern distribution of coyotes prior to European settlement in America was described as reaching only as far south as central Mexico and that introduction of livestock favoured migration of coyotes to southern Mexico and Central America."[7]
  • This FOX News headline reads *"Chicken Bones Suggest Polynesians Beat Columbus to America"[8] (The chicken bones are from Chile, btw)
  • "...Peru, now called the best Gastronomic Country in America."[9]
  • The New York Times: *"NEW genetic research has produced more evidence that the first people to settle America probably arrived from Asia as early as 29,000 years ago." ""We believe in our data," he said. "I feel that they strongly push for an early arrival of people in the Americas.""[10]
  • Google Books: "Atlantis in America" by Lewis Spence and Paul Tice (2002) "Lewis Spence presents evidence that Atlantis was located somewhere in the western hemisphere, in and around Central America."[11]
  • University of Texas: [12] "Chicken - George F Carter considers the evidence in "Pre-Columbian Chickens in America" (in Man Across the Sea, edited by Riley et al 1971. pp. 178-218), concluding that chickens in America were more likely present in the New world before Columbus, and that they were more likely to have been introductions of Asiatic fowl (but by way of Polynesia, and to South America)."
  • Histories of the Western Hemisphere make plentiful use of the term "America" in reference to said area, in such expressions as: 'humans walked across Beringia to America', 'the Mayas created one of the most advanced civilizations in America', 'Columbus discovered America', 'did Phoenicians discover America?', 'the Portuguese colonies in America'. Some more examples: "Civilizations in America"[13]; "Chronology of the PORTUGUESE POSSESSIONS in AMERICA (1500-1700)"[14]; [15] "Iberians in America" "Between 1503 and 1660 more than seven million pounds of silver reached Seville from America..."; [16] "The tradition of a White God in ancient America was preserved through generations of Indians from Chile to Alaska..."; [17] "[Domingo Martínez de Irala] As the first governor in America elected by a free vote of the colonists, he founded in Asunción the first cabildo in America."; [18] "Bartolomé De Las Casas began his career in America as a soldier and encomendero."; [19] "Portugal in America, to 1600".

Diego (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, what you said is "There are two topics with long-term significance, so neither of them can be the primary topic." What you (partially) quoted does not support that claim. As for the page view statistics, what you're describing is substantial. Most of the sources you're using that refer to America as a landmass do so in a historical standpoint of a pre-Columbian vague landmass, not in a modern setting (even the sources you cited use "the Americas" to refer to it in a modern context), and those examples are very few and far between; by far the exception and not the norm. As for having "not shown any hard evidence", you are welcome to review the plethora of evidence given in the archives, particlarly comments such as this, which more than demonstrate what you're suggesting there is no evidence for. - Aoidh (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
You have not shown that America the country has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic".
Wikipedia documents history, you know. The point of educational value is that readers of today objectively gain some value when learning about the topic, and the links and analysis usage above show that the meaning of America the continent is in full strength even today. If you meant to imply that a term widely used in current documents does not have long term significance and educational value merely because it describes past events and settings, sorry but that doesn't make much sense. Educational value in the present era is shown by its usage in current sources, which we have.
The links you include in the diff above merely show by a random sample of sources that America as a country is also used by current references, something which nobody disputes here, not that it's overwhelmingly prevalent from an academic and educational standpoint.
The comment you linked to is part of a Move discussion that resulted in no consensus. The request was initiated a 4th of July; it seems that we're bound to repeat this discussion every year when U.S. Independence Day brings attention to this page, although the purported grievance doesn't matter much and doesn't pose any problem during the rest of the year. Diego (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of what I linked; you claimed there was no evidence for the arguments the support comments were making, I was merely point out that this isn't the case, and that there is a great deal of evidence. I agree that I haven't shown that, nor have I tried. It is greater? Yes. Substantially so? Arguably, but that's irrelevant. What I was doing was pointing out that your claim was not backed up by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As for the claim that America is "widely used in current documents" to describe the landmass, that's quite a claim, one not backed up by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, both academic and otherwise. I'm not sure what you meant by speculating on what you thought I was implying, but no. When sources and readers say America, they overwhelmingly refer to the United States, even if a few sources do otherwise in very specific contexts. Therefore America should redirect to United States per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and navigability. That is what I am implying, and what this move discussion is about. - Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me that I have problems following you logic. How is "substantially" irrelevant, if it's explicitly encoded in the guideline? How can a topic be primary with respect to long-term significance if it doesn't meet the conditions laid out in our consensual definition of long-term significance? How come that, according to you, the amount of usage of America as a land mass should be supported by documents that don't mention America as a land mass, instead of those that do it? What evidence do you have that the sources referring to the continent are "a few"? Why should we dismiss the fact that America the continent has good deal of historical and educational significance as of today? Those are a whole lot of questions that should be answered before we could reach a consensus to use the country as a primary topic based on volume of usage alone. Diego (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It's irrelevant because it is not "explicitly encoded in the guideline" are you continue to suggest. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists usage and long-term significance, but nowhere does it say both are required. "In many cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance." Not all cases, thus meeting that criteria is irrelevant in that it's not the factor being considered. A topic can a primary topic on usage alone, as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC shows. Even if you're arguing that no single topic "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value", that's not the argument I'm putting forward, so you're arguing against something that isn't being said. - Aoidh (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I didn't say that evidence for your position didn't exist, I said that none had been brought to this discussion so far - which, before you posted that diff, was true. I still don't think that those links in the archive count as strong support for your position. They are evidence that the meaning as a country is frequent in common parlance, but they do nothing to disprove that the meaning as a continent appears in common use in historic contexts, where it's more appropriate. (BTW, the top result in one of your links is to this article from three days ago, where the Pope apologizes for the "grave sins [that] were committed against the native peoples of America"; I don't think he's talking about the US there). Diego (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
nowhere does it say both are required - nor I have said that the guideline implies so. It seems that you misunderstand that part of my argument; what I say is that, for the topic to be primary with regard to long-term significance alone (i.e. without taking usage into account for assessing that part of the guideline), you need to have one topic dominate all the others - otherwise it can't be considered "the primary topic with respect to long-term significance". This is exactly the situation we have here.
I've also said that the guideline doesn't say the opposite (that only one of both criteria is enough), so it's up to us to decide how many we want to use. My point is that taking just the amount of usage would be wrong. meeting that criteria is irrelevant in that it's not the factor being considered - by you. The argument that no single topic "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" is the one I am making, and the guideline supports it as a valid argument to take into account. As you are not stating a case for why it shouldn't be relevant, my position stands. Diego (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually you did: "There are two topics with long-term significance, so neither of them can be the primary topic." That's not accurate, per the guideline. Nothing there supports that comment; you may be of the opinion that neither should be the primary topic, but WP:PRIMARYTOPIC most certainly allows for a primary topic without respect to long-term significance. Nothing in my support argument is refuted by your claim of long-term significance in the other topic; it may be relevant to your oppose rationale, but not to the comment you replied to, because you're attempting to refute something that isn't being argued. - Aoidh (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You've said that "there is no policy-based reason to avoid redirecting". The other part of my argument shows how that is not true, as I have provided several reasons based on policy. First, there is no clear winner with respect to long-term significance. Second, the decision to have usage as the sole criterion to determine the primary topic would need to reach a consensus, which you don't have. Third, you haven't shown that the probability to search for the US article with the term America is much more likely than all the other topics combined. That's what you've argued for that I have refuted. That you don't agree with these reasons doesn't make them to not exist. Diego (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
So your argument that there shouldn't be a consensus to move is that there wasn't a prior consensus to determine the factors leading to the move? You've made your position clear here, you disagree with me, that's fine, you disagreeing does not invalidate my support rationale. - Aoidh (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
No. The argument is that to have a consensus, you should reach a consensus. Diego (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Fully Support The USA is by far the primary topic for English Speakers. I realize it is called other things by other languages (some not even so nice), but in English, The USA == America. The land mass is known as North and South America. Yes, they are connected, (except for the pesky Panama canal). Europe and Asia and Africa are all connected as well (discounting canals). We don't say that someone from China or South Africa is European though. ~~ipuser 90.192.101.114 (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The USA is by far the primary topic for English Speakers. Say again? Diego (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Cherrypicking rare usages out of context is not useful, as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is based on the principle that the usage most commonly used by people at large should take precedence, and that usage is "United States of America". When qualifiers are added, "America" can refer to different things. However, without qualifiers, as "America", it only refers to the USA. RGloucester — ☎ 14:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is *not* based on the principle of the most common use "by people at large"; it's based on consensus that there's a primary topic, which we don't have here. Usage is but one of the factors to be taken into account together with historical meaning and significance. Quoting authoritative dictionaries and encyclopedias that reflect the meaning of the word as a continent is not "cherrypicking out of context". Diego (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, RGloucester, the statement that "without qualifiers, as 'America', it refers only to the USA" is patently not true. Paul Simon wrote a song called "America", so without any qualifiers, the word might refer to that song, or any of several other songs with the same title. More importantly, if you read any scientific literature, particularly in the fields of zoology and botany, you will see the word "America" without any qualifier frequently used to indicate the bi-continent landmass. If you had said "usually," I might agree with you, but "only" is entirely unsupportable. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
What does the song's refer to? Regardless, without the qualifier of "song", "America" refers to the country. We are not bogged down in specialist academic usage. We use common usage. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This usage is not common in English. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the country called America. RGloucester — ☎ 14:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I Oppose this perennial proposal for all the reasons in all the previous requested moves (shouldn't those be listed at the top?). Nothing has changed from all the previous requests that resulted in a lack of consensus. First, Wikipedia is a project for English Speakers, not English-native speakers. Second, when there's contention on several meanings for the same word and there's a mismatch between their usage and long-term significance, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy mandates that the disambiguation page stays at the base name.
There's also the argument of not forcing roughly one in ten readers to load a whole wrong article about a single country when they want to read about the continent; a lightweight Disambiguation page is better in that case, in special for mobile users. This last argument is not encoded in policy, but has been used successfuly in several previous move discussions for words where the traditional meaning differs from the topic with a high volume of visitors. Diego (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. WP:USEENGLISH is about choosing the spelling of a concept from English sources, not about deciding what is the primary meaning to determine a primary topic. Anyway, the numerous dictionaries listed in previous discussions are enough to prove that "America" as a continent is an established meaning in English as well. Diego (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
English speakers must use English as English is used, and in English "America" overwhelmingly means "United States of America". This is how RS use the word. There is no "contention" at all. There might be some in foreign languages, but not English, where the primary topic is clear. The present dab is a matter of WP:ASTONISH, whereby users simply won't understand why "America" does not link to the country called America. If people end up at the wrong page, they can be redirected to the page they want with a hatnote. That's the standard method used in cases where there is an overwhelmingly primary topic and a few niche uses. Look at this BBC article, which discusses the decline of American power on a world stage. The article has no trouble using "America" or "American" to refer to the United States of America forty-one times. Clearly there was no ambiguity here. RGloucester — ☎ 14:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
See my link above to the failed move discussion in Archive 3. The English language does use "America" to refer to the whole continent, as shown by the 14 dictionaries and encyclopedias listed there that include this meaning (including Oxford, Columbia, Webster, Macquarie, Australian National, Encarta or Chambers).
There's nothing astonishing in looking up a name in an encyclopedia and being given a list of all the meanings of the word (together with all the links to articles about films, books, songs and vehicles with that name), that's basic usage of dictionaries and encyclopedias. Diego (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The United States is clearly the primary topic, as even acknowledged by Diego's own comments that roughly nine of ten users who type "America" intend to load the article about the country. That's an overwhelming majority. - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't intend to comment much more, but I'll respond to you given that you mentioned me: if "an overwhelming majority" were what we use to determine primary topics, Madonna would be an article about a popular singer. Diego (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not the only determining factor, but it was interesting that you tried to use it to argue against primary topic in saying "There's also the argument of not forcing roughly one in ten readers to load a whole wrong article about a single country when they want to read about the continent," when the guidelines clearly indicate the opposite point. There is a reason that Madonna doesn't redirect to the singer probably has to do with long-term significance, which is also why Apple is not about the company. That's a separate argument, and less easy to determine in the case of America, though I'd argue 200-years of usage for the country is long-term enough. - BilCat (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's also worth noting that 96 of every 100 readers manage to find United States without the need of this disambiguation page, so there doesn't seem to exist any need to link that target article from this base name. And if time is a factor, the continent has been thus named for 300 more years than the country. The country is clearly not the primary topic with respect to long-term significance. Diego (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not quite 300 years, and IIRC, the Spanish didn't start calling the continent "America" until the early 1700s (in preference to Colombia). It's ironic now that most who favor using America to only mean the continent are Spanish speakers. The comparison with Madonna and Apple are that the modern usages are less than 40 years old, compared to many hundreds of years for the traditional meanings. - BilCat (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading for ease of editing

  • Oppose. U.S. Bias, ignoring usage and reader expectations in central and South America. Did Columbus discover America? This proposal is to change that answer to a "no". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "US bias", whatever that is. As I'm British, I can hardly be considered a party to a pro-American bias. Readers in Central and South America who want to find something other than what English speakers refer to as "America" need to use an encylopaedia in a language that has a similar perception. This is an English encylopaedia, primarily for native English speakers. We use English usage, not Spanish usage. It is a guideline, as a matter of fact, that we use English. If people want a Spanish encylopaedia, they should go to the Spanish Wikipedia. What's more, we don't force the Spanish Wikipedia to use "Americas" instead of "America" when referring to the continent, and neither can Spanish-speaking users force the English Wikipedia to use Spanish usage in English. The word, as used by people generally in English, refers to the USA. Reader expections in the English-speaking world are what matter, and that the moment, the present situation is WP:ASTONISHing for them. This must remedied. Regardless, residual users who come to a page in error can be redirected with a hatnote, as is standard in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. RGloucester — ☎ 22:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Those arguments would be perfectly valid if the article The Americas were placed under the title America, which is not. Diego (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So we ignore the reader expectations in India, Africa, etc, (a far larger group of people) where America overwhelming means the US? Perhaps it's time that is changed to "Columbus discovered the Americas" (and maybe it already has). It's certainly more accurate in modern worldwide English. - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but are Mexicans, Colombians, etc. offended or afraid when Iranian leaders shout "Death to America"? Somehow I think even they know that it's the US is being referred to. - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not participate in propagating ignorance prevalent in non-reliable sources. In correct usage, "America" is not the USA. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Words can have multiple "correct" meanings, unless you actually are a video game or a model railroad! - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I think RGloucester is not correct on multiple points, too many to address, clearly our opinions differ.
BilCat. I don't think anyone is ignored by a DAB page. A DAB page works at a lower set of assumptions, attempting to cater very broadly. The downside is the extra click required by people who intellectually-lazily, incorrectly, use "America" as if it necessarily means the USA. Currently, an Indian with partial enculturation with the western English language may expect America to be USA, will unexpectedly arrive at a DAB page that in the top lines informs them of their misapprehension and provides an easy link to the USA article.
Yes, words, especially in this dog of a language, can have multiple meanings. Funny, I had never seen that DAB page. Funnier, the signifcant meaning for me is not listed. Anyway, if words have multiple meanings, it is usually a good reason for a DAB page. I think in this case it is especially important to have the DAB page because a very common usage is not, formally speaking, correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Blame the Norman French for "this dog of a language": Old English was perfectly fine, though currently unintelligible, until 1066. Anyway, your assertions that WP is "participate in propagating ignorance prevalent in non-reliable sources" is absolutely ludicrous, but you're welcome to believe that nonsense if you want. It's odd that you're basically insisting that the whole world is biased, and that only native Spanish speakers in Latin America are unbiased on this issue, when it's well known that the root of their argument is based in anti-US-American propaganda solely intended to "prove" American arrogance. If anyone is to blame for equating "America" with "USA", it's not US-Americans, but the British. They still think Holland is all of the Netherlands (while at the same time having enormous hissy fits when someone else (usually an American) does the same thing with England and the UK), and that "Cutter" is the correct pronunciation for Qatar! - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely ludicrous? Readers think that America=USA, come to Wikipedia, and have it apparently mistakenly confirmed. Making it even worse is that United States is not at United States of America, although the problem is saved by the lede.
The US bias here is huge. But this does not mean that a minority is unbiased. Yes, the whole world is biased in some way.
While I am familiar with Holland and England, and even passingly with Qatar, "that the root of their argument is based in anti-US-American propaganda" is not at all known to me, why do you say that? I am interested. I have never seen the hissy fits you refer to. To me, this is not a matter of hissy fits, but of curiously interesting pedantry. I thought "cutter" was pretty close for a non-Arabic speaker?
Consider the following questions: Are Cuba and The Bahamas in America? Is Hawaii in America? My answer would be that it depends what you mean by "America". The ambiguity illustrates why America should be a DAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that there isn't ambiguity at all, but for the most part, unless qualified, for the majority of English speakers, America does equal USA. A native English speaker generally wouldn't ask "Are Cuba and The Bahamas in America?", but would use "the Americas". In fact, most government-school educated Americans probably do think that Columbus discovered the United States! As to why the title is at United States rather than United States of America, that's primarily because of WP's Common name guideline, and I actually disagree with it in this case, and in many other cases also. While I don't have a source at hand, as I understand it, the "anti-US-American propaganda" comes out of the Latin American leftist/communist movements of the mid-20th century. - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've stated my reasons in previous move/redirect discussions, and I'm too lazy to repeat them here. I will add one thing, though: Back in 2013, the links to the United States and Americas articles on this page were made to go through the specially created redirect pages US_(country) and Americas (continent) so that people could get a handle on how many people landing at this page were looking for each of the two topics. The page-view statistics for the last 30 days show 9,699 for the former and 2,523 for the latter. That does indicate that a majority were looking for the nation, but not enough of a majority to change my mind. I see no reason to inconvenience about 2,500 users every damn month. Deor (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
So we inconvenience 9,600 users instead? That makes no sense to me, as the point of Primary Topics is to inconvenience the least amount of users, not the most. - BilCat (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Those typing "America" are equally inconvenienced now; they land on this page and have to click once on a link to get where they want to be. If we redirect this title to United States, everyone who wants something else (not just those who want Americas but those who want any of the many other articles listed on this page) is twice as inconvenienced; he or she has to click on a link to America (disambiguation) in a hatnote on the United States article and then click on the dab page's link for the place they want to be. WP:PTOPIC suggests that a topic may be primary if it is "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be what a user is searching for—not just more likely than the next-most-likely topic. Deor (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Which is how many exactly? - BilCat (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
If we go with numbers rather than historicity and meaning, let's play numbers:
  • The United States article is about 320 kilobytes long, plus 958Kb in thumbnails and icons. That's more than one megabyte - the article is huge in digital weight. The 8,173 readers who visited The Americas recently through this disambiguation page would had been forced collectively to load 10,200 Mb of useless content to reach the hatnote that lead them to their desired article, and that's not counting the readers of all the other articles.
  • By contrast, 33,815 visitors accessed Unite States through the redirect, including the peak at July, 4th; they were provided with 250 Mb of listings for all the content that Wikipedia has to offer about the name they typed (so, not entirely useless).
The move would waste four more times of bandwidth (which counts towards net usage and data caps, and thus costs money) for those wanting to read any other article than those wanting to read about the republic. That's how we'd do about inconveniencing readers. And don't let me go to count the comparative waiting times. Diego (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Those arguments would be perfectly valid if the article The Americas were placed under the title America, which it's not. - BilCat (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to use sarcasm, at least make it meaningful. Diego (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't, as the original statement it copies wasn't meaningful itself! - BilCat (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
That you couldn't grasp the meaning doesn't mean that it didn't have one. RGloucester said that people would be astonished of learning about the Americas when looking for the US - but that's not what would happen, since the article The Americas is not what they get, they get a disambiguation page. Apparently RGloucester above considers that having a DAB in that place is somehow Spaniards taking control of the English Wikipedia (and that we are not using English!), rather than editors having an editorial disagreement about the encyclopedic qualities of the term (and resorting to the default layout that policy advices using in case of disagreement). I cannot wrap my head around what you meant by copying my reply verbatim, other than not addressing my argument. Diego (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I edit conflicted and saved the wrong version. I didn't feel like repeating what I wrote before I lost it, and you'd already replied. - BilCat (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (EC) Oppose Per 2007 move request, 2011 move request, 2013 move request; from this request per Deor, and SmokeyJoe ; "America" means (1) the New World, (2) North America, (3) US+Canada, (4) USA-only; a variety of values, and a large number of institutional uses in English are for all the Americas, even those founded by US-people or headquartered in the US. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. In the English language, the overwhelming usage of the word America is to refer to the United States. This is common sense, and a disambiguation page will allow the minority looking for more arcane uses of the word to find it. RWR8189 (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
By the latest recount, that minority is of one visitor looking for Americas through this disambiguation page for every four looking for United States. In the past, when deciding on primary topics on volume alone, we usually haven't allowed such moves unless there's at least one order of magnitude of difference (I'm thinking about Big and All That Jazz, which were decided on similar grounds against having a primary topic). Diego (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The country is most commonly simply known as the United States which serves as a contracted form of the "United States of America". IMO that "of" should serve as a clue. America (often called the Americas) is primarily used in reference to the main Western hemisphere landmasses. As a curious note Amerigo Vespucci (1454 – 1512), after whom the continents were named, travelled to South American locations. See: United States#Etymology. "In 1507, the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the lands of the Western Hemisphere "America" after the Italian explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci (Latin: Americus Vespucius)... The first known publication of the phrase "United States of America" was in an anonymous essay in The Virginia Gazette newspaper in Williamsburg, Virginia, on April 6, 1776..."
Also, see Ngrams. Its commonly called the United States. Given the historical context I think there might be a possibility to turn America into a conceptdab. GregKaye 09:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The country is most commonly referred to as the United States, that's true. However, this isn't a move request for that title. America most commonly refers to the United States. Your oppose argument is against the United States page being moved, not the America page being moved. When you claim that America "is primarily used in reference to the main Western hemisphere landmasses", where are you getting that data from? The previous move discussions certainly don't support that claim, did something change since 2013 that shifted usage of the word America to refer to something other than the United States? Even when the British use the word America they are referring to the United States. I couldn't find any recent usage of America referring to the landmass, especially not in any news articles or Google Scholar. - Aoidh (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the "of" can be seen as instructive in the exact opposite manner. One very common naming convention for countries runs along the lines [Description of political constitution] of [Name of Country]: Republic of Colombia, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, State of Japan, Kingdom of Sweden, etc. By that same logic, then "United State of America" would be rather akin to the United Mexican States or former countries like the United States of Brazil or the United States of Venezuela. -- Irn (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the United States is unquestionably the primary topic for "America", which should redirect to the United States article and have a DAB link in a referral. Nobody that I know of has ever meant anything other than the United States when talking about "America" (i.e. "We live in America", "Welcome to America", "Let's go to America"). If talking about the continents North America or South America as a whole, people tend to specifically mention which continent as opposed to simply saying "America". Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Even those opposing say most readers who search for "America" want information on the United States. Why base the decision on anything else? 166.171.187.105 (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Spanish don't have a monopoly of English. In other languages United States = America. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "America" is an ambiguous term and can refer to either the United States or the continent. Particularly in geographic or historic context, the term may refer to the continent. Rob984 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Many words are ambiguous terms, that's what disambiguation pages are for. Just because a term is potentially ambiguous does not mean there can be no primary topic; many words can refer to multiple things but if a word usually refers to a specific thing, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not negated just because it can refer to other things too. - Aoidh (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but it must be demonstrated that the topic is "much more likely than any other topic". As already mentioned, page view statistics have failed to demonstrate this. Rob984 (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
We must be looking at different statistics then, because what I'm looking at shows United States to be much more likely than any other topic by a significant margin. Regardless, as the previous move request demonstrated, statistics can be manipulated too easily to be a sole determining factor, as explained at WP:DAB. Because of this, page view statistics are not the sole metric used to determine primacy. What you're saying "must be demonstrated" is not demonstrated in that way. - Aoidh (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
What other metric has been proposed? And in this case, "significant" doesn't come out as "outstanding" nor "much more than all the others combined".Diego (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Page view statistics can and have been manipulated in previous discussions, so saying it shouldn't be moved because of page view statistics mean very little, and that's per WP:DAB itself. - Aoidh (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRECISION. The word "America" in almost every single English-language context other than the set phrase "Columbus discovered America" and its variants means "the United States". And indeed, on both sides of the pond many people are confused by that set phrase and assume that Columbus must have landed in the land known now as the U.S., and not because they are dumb, but because the word "America" means the United States thereof. Red Slash 01:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a fairly good argument towards the educational value of the term America as a continent. If that phrase is so often confused by so many people, all those would benefit from being informed of its multiple meanings. ;-) Diego (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
In English, America isn't a continent but rather the normal term to refer to the United States of America, while the landmasses are North and South America, just like 'Eurasiafrica' isn't a landmass, it's Europe, Asia, and Africa. While Eurasia is sometimes spoken, it is by far not the primary term, akin to 'America' not being the primary usage for the landmass that is formed by the union of North and South America around the Panama Canal. ~~ipuser 90.192.101.114 (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, esp. as per Red Slash – the continent is nearly always "North America", etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while the country is certainly the most common usage, there is a substantial minority usage that can't be ignored. Forcing a gigantic article on careless searchers is inexcusable. A disambiguation page is by far the preferable solution. older ≠ wiser 01:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, as per Red Slash, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DLINKS, WP:COMMONSENSE. Let's be clear: "America" in almost ever single English-language context refer to the United States. Opposers do NOT dispute this, so all we have is wikipolicy to go on. wikipolicy is clear. Let's read PRIMARYTOPIC slowly, together now. It says that a topic can be primary with respect to usage and with respect to historical significance. It is obvious to any native English speaker that "America" as "United States" is the most common usage, and no one disputes. in fact, stats show above show that most users searching "america" want the article on the U.S. this is not a surprise. even many other languages use "america" for US, like Japanese, Italian and others. i think only english matters, but if spanish folks want to bring that into the equation, america still seems to refer to the U.S. most times in all languages. in terms of significance, "america" meaning U.S. clearly wins again. What is God Bless America? What is the American Revolution? What is the Spanish-American War or Kafka book Amerika, or Ginsburg poem America? They are all about America. AMERICA, or the U.S. so many english language works are written about "america", and the meaning is always clear. the historical significance argument is CLEAR, because for us we write north and south america when we want to talk about continents, or even "new world". "America" in this sense wins all criteria for primary topic status. all other arguments here are not based in wikipolicy. ~~ ipuser 24.189.165.109 (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. 24.189.165.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Why do I get the feeling that every editor saying "there are no other arguments based in policy" is a severe case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT? There is no dispute that the meaning as US gets more usage (though not "in almost ever single English-language context", which has been disputed with hard data), what's contested is that this is enough to meet the strict standards set by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Being the most common usage is not by itself a reason to make it the primary topic when there are other meanings as shown by the numerous examples where we don't do that. Madonna does not lead to Madonna (entertainer), and Las Vegas does not redirect to Las Vegas Strip despite the tourist gambling destination overwhelmingly being what English speakers mean when using that name in common parlance and news reels, as well as with speakers in other languages do; we recognize that those targets wouldn't serve the best encyclopedic use if they displaced their older, longer established meanings; and that the appearance of the original meaning in contexts like history books and academic settings (what is the discovery of America? What is the Conquest of America?) is enough to dispute current volume of usage as the sole criterion. (And yes, I'm aware that the two latest examples all refer to the Spanish, French, British, Portuguese and Dutch exploration and settling of the new territory that lasted for about 400 years of history - that's the whole point!) Diego (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I've never said you're arguments aren't based in WP policy, and I'm not sure who else except an IP has. But to say that usage of America to mean USA doesn't have historical significance is clearly wrong. The question is whether the historical usage of America for the 2 continents outweighs the historical usage for USA. Two years ago, the discussion was very close, but in the end the closer opted not to slight Latin Americans, and closed as no consensus. That seems to have been less of a concern n the discussions this time, so arguments have focused on the historicity angle. It will be interesting to see what happens this time. Hopefully not simply "No consensus" without explanation, as in the other 2 move discussions. - BilCat (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
to say that usage of America to mean USA doesn't have historical significance is clearly wrong. Great, because I haven't said that either. The question is whether the historical usage for the country outweigths its meaning as a landmass, and it doesn't do to the high degree required by the guideline. They're equivalent, which doesn't bode well for a topic that wants to be considered primary. Since supporters of the move base their position on opinions and haven't presented a good case (no metrics, no analysis of usage in different contexts, no references other than the anecdotic), a "no consensus" close would make sense on the basis that we can't agree to which criteria are relevant and how much weight each meaning holds under each criterion. Diego (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely. How many English-speakers mean anything else when they say "America"? Most people in Britain don't even say "the United States". To us, "America" is the common name of the country, and I suspect that's the case with many other English speakers. The landmass is "The Americas" if it's referred to at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:Primary, specifically the examples section. In our modern context, in English, "America" overwhelmingly means "United States". Like an Alabaman looking up "Birmingham" and being taken to an article about a city in England, these other considerations don't override the primary use of the word. -- Irn (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Archaic dictionary definitions are about as relevant today as arguing that “gay” still means “happy”. While, as noted above, if you look hard enough, you can find some usage of “America” to refer to the Americas, as opposed to simply the country, those are few and far between. In my experience, almost everyone who objects to the use of “America” to refer to the country (which, to be fair, I don't see represented in this discussion) are Spanish speakers who are simply mistranslating “América” to “America” when it should be “the Americas” (because that is the word that best corresponds to the concept as used in both languages). Not unlike how “Norteamérica” doesn't actually correspond to “North America”. To explain further with an example, a translation of “feliz cumpleaños” as “gay birthday” would be immediately recognized as a mistranslation even though one can point to dictionary defintions and examples that support that usage. Moving the page for that reason is a bit too prescriptivist for my liking, though, which is why I'm putting this in a comment, and not with my !vote. -- Irn (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with RGloucester: Without pretending people only mean the USA when they say "America" in English, it's clear that's what they predominately mean. Non-English usage is pretty irrelevant. —innotata 21:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – It seems that the BBC have come to my aid today, having published an article on "migration to the Americas". Many of those who claim a usage of "America" referring to the continents of N. America and S. America together in English have posited that this is a significant usage in English, or in a historical manner. This article is proof that that usage is simply non-existent in standard contemporary English. There is no mention of "America" referring to a landmass or anything else. Only "the Americas", and "North America"/"South America". "Americas" appears ten times in the article. If the usage referring to the "landmass" was really so present, this article would've been the place to use it. It simply isn't common. The so-called "landmass" is referred to as "the Americas" in English, and that's why the relevant article is at Americas. If this usage of "America" referring to a landmass is so common, then the article on the Americas should be changed. Until then, it is clear that "America" refers to the USA in almost all cases. RGloucester — ☎ 01:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal about the redirect note

A lot of the rationales opposing the support comments seem to be based around the idea that it's unfair for readers looking for the Americas to have to click through two links, seeing as how other than the United States, that's the second most common target. The America (disambiguation) page would have to be linked at the top of the United States article anyways, why not just include Americas in that, to avoid that issue entirely? If we add:

"America" redirects here. For landmass comprising North and South America, see Americas. For other uses, see America (disambiguation).

Then it directly addresses and solves those concerns. Either way, readers looking for Americas would have to click a link if this move request fails or succeeds; this solves the concern that readers would be inconvenienced, and directs more people to the article they are statistically looking for. - Aoidh (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with readers not wanting United States (the article) is not because of clicking two links, it's because of forcing them to load one megabyte of content each for nothing, which collectively amounts to 3Gb of wasted downloads every month.
Given the cyclic nature of this conversation, now I think the optimum solution would be to redirect this page to United States every July the 4th to appease the needs of the patriots, and return it to its current stable configuration on the 5th of July. Diego (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
What an outrageous statement. It is clear that you are the one with the agenda, and not the other way. I could hardly be called a "patriot" of a foreign country that I generally despise, as my credentials will show. However, that's not what this is about. This is about what anglophones, all anglophones, means when they say "America". That's the USA, and hence WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. I'm sorry if you don't like that this is how English evolved, but it is. We're not going to force Spanish-speakers to write the Spanish equivalent of "American" instead of estadounidense, likewise, they can't force us to eliminate "American" and "America" in our own language. That's all. There is no policy reason that this move shouldn't go through. All we've got for "opposition" is passion from those who do not understand the concept of common usage. RGloucester — ☎ 02:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, please remember to be civil. My comment was tongue-in-cheek, we don't go performing major re-structuring for a single day. I apologize for my remark if the tone that was lost in text form has distressed you. Diego (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Your comment was not read as "tongue-in-cheek", just so you know. I'm not seeing anyone accusing any of the oppose comments of "anti-US bias" so it would help if you commented on the comments instead of the imagined motives of editors, because it comes across as an ad hom attack and not as a tongue-in-cheek remark. - Aoidh (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I read Diego's comment as alluding to the desire of Americans to have a proper national name. It is a standard joke, not particularly funny, but I have heard it several times in my lifetime. But please note the very important point of the heavy unwanted download received by anyone not wanting USA, in addition to the burden of extra hatnote cruft on top of the article for thse who do want USA. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anyone accusing any of the oppose comments of "anti-US bias" - Then you haven't read the whole conversation... ;-)
Just to clarify the meaning of what I wrote, when I said "needs of the patriots" I was referring to the readers who wanted to learn about the US on a 4th of July, not the motives of editors wanting to have that page here. That would be a legitimate use of the redirect, but both the numbers and history of the term don't justify it, not even a single day in a year. Diego (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Sticking
"America" redirects here. For landmass comprising North and South America, see Americas. For other uses, see America (disambiguation).
as a hatnote on United States, is an admission that some readers will be astonished to find themselves at that article, and that there is something odd about that redirection, and significantly adds to the clutter at the top of an important article.
People wanting easy access to the United States should learn to use the much shorter and easier redirect, usa. People going straight to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America url are probably doing it out of curiosity, and are not the sort of reader that justify compromising the correctness of the product.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)

It's hardly an "admission", it's the purpose of such redirect templates. Your comment makes as much sense as someone saying that people wanting easy access to the Americas article should learn to type that in. Doyou have any evidence backing up the dubious claim that people arriving at this article are just curious and not trying to arrive at an article? - Aoidh (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
"someone saying that people wanting easy access to the Americas article should learn to type that in". Absolutely. We should stop encouraging ineptitude in navigation.
"people arriving at this article are just curious and not trying to arrive at an article" just seems pretty logical to me. Why would someone take the trouble to type "America" at the end of the en.wikipedia.org url, when it is more obvious to use "usa", or to use any browser of search engine functionality? With almost no mainspace incoming links, a very low ranking in the search engines, and a title more cumbersome than the obvious, it is most reasonable to assume that people come to this page specifically to read what Wikipedia has to say about the topic "America", and the best answer for that is the current DAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't follow that logic, especially since you've given no evidence to back it up. If you type "America" into Wikipedia you arrive here, and it's the first result on Google as well, so what you're saying is highly unlikely. Regardless, those that are "curious" can still access the information, that's what the hatnote satisfies, so the idea that it should direct here because some people might be "curious" about what the DAB page says doesn't really make much sense. - Aoidh (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
If people googling America didn't want this page, google wouldn't top-rank it. Google is actually quite clever you know, tracking whether you go there, and how long you stay there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Unless you have some kind of insider information on PageRank and Panda, I wouldn't make any claims about why something is ranked the way it in on Google, especially in regards to a Wikipedia page whose title is an exact match to what was typed in. Regardless, the point still stands, the idea that you have to manually type America at the end of the URL bar to arrive at this page is inaccurate, and should not be used as a rationale for opposing the move. - Aoidh (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
A lot is known about Google Search and PageRank without needing to worry about fine details or inside knowledge. It is very well known and understood, I hope, that the popularity of a search engine depends on its ability to offer the page the searcher really wants. If many people searching "America" really wanted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States, then google would rank it higher.
I think it far more dubious to be second guessing search algorithms, and moving pages because you think google is doing a bad job.
Typing into the url is but one method. Whatever the method, you have to type the title, because it is not incoming links bringing you here.
Yes, you are right about title matching being important. That is a reason to title properly. United States should be moved to United States of America, and with that done there would be even less good reason to create redirect patches and crufty hatnotes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
For me, the first result on google.co.uk is Americas. See www.google.co.uk/search?q=America&pws=0. Rob984 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
What's more interesting to me is that, outside Wikipedia articles, almost all the top results in Google search and Google images refer to the USA. BBC America is called that for a reason, no? That's because the name of the country is "America". RGloucester — ☎ 17:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
So, we're doing it better than Google, right? You can see it that way, or that Google trusts that we're doing the right thing. Diego (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, Google shows "america continent" under "Searches related to America". Diego (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No, what it shows is that Wikipedia is an outlier, and according to our policy on WP:COMMONNAME, we are never supposed to be the outlier unless it is necessary for some mechanical or other reason. There is no such reason in this case, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC demands a move. RGloucester — ☎ 17:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me? WP:COMMONNAME is about naming articles, not linking to them; and the US article is not named "America". We are expected to structure our information through encyclopedic criteria, which are different than what search engines achieve without human supervision; and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has evolved and been refined during the years to avoid extraneous results brought by shallow criteria such as popularity contests. Even when resorting to Google ranking results, "outlier" is an inaccurate term for something that appears twice on Google's first page of results. (Also, I don't know about you, but I get the map of the continent at the second row of results in Google images when searching from the Google.com interface in English, and on the first row for the suggested search "America map"). Diego (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That map is from the Wikipedia article on Americas. I said I was excluding Wikipedia articles. RGloucester — ☎ 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And why would you do that? Wikipedia is one of the mayor sites used by Google to show relevant results. Diego (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. And no, this map in the Google Image results is not from the Wikipedia article on Americas, and neither are all these ones. Diego (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Because, as I said, it shows that Wikipedia is the outlier amongst the results. Wikipedia is not meant to be an outlier. RGloucester — ☎ 18:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, the America continent related search is not a Wikipedia results. Two independent data points start making a trend. And you still are using volume as the only criterion ignoring all the others. Diego (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
What others? The word "America" commonly refers to the country, and that's that. A hatnote will suffice for the very few people searching for something other than the common definition, as it is for all other similar cases. There is no reason to WP:ASTONISH the vast majority of readers. RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
A hatnote is an ugly patch taking up prime space. This suggestion will take the hatnote to multiple lines on a large monitor, a paragraph on a small device. The failure of a google search of "America" to point more prominently to the nation page would be fixed by renaming it to United States of America. A DAB page should never astonish. All reasonable readers should know or immediately see that there is only not one possible topic called "America". Astonishment is when it doesn't even make sense in hindsight.
"The word "America" commonly refers to the country", yes, in common English, but not in correct formal use as expected in a reference work, and is commonly used in the broader more historical more geological sense as well. So your that is not all that's that.
How about you try the question: Is Hawaii in America? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Hawaii is in America. "America" means USA in both formal and common usage, as demonstrated by the various BBC articles used above, and also by other articles in The New York Times. Both those sources have high standards when it comes to terminology and usage, and if "America" were so colloquial, they would not use it. The continents are "North America" and "South America", together the "Americas", never "America", except in extremely rare and archaic usage. Hatnotes are a standard Wikipedia tool endorsed by WP:DAB. If you dislike them, please do something about the applicable guidelines and policies, rather than railing on about them here. RGloucester — ☎ 01:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Well put me down as personally differing, "Hawaii is in America" is a false statement. But I would like to read your various BBC articles, as what matters is what's published. Searching the lengthy above for BBC links, I don't see yours, but Diego's well presented, including http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4609074.stm in which "America" is not the USA. I am not against hatnotes, but against excessive hatnotes, consistent with WP:DAB. The proposal here advocates a excessive hatnoting at another article as a precondition for the proposed move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The hatnote presented here is actually fairly short, and quite common on WP, and allowed by the guidelines. Also, I'm quite sure there are many long articles on WP that are primary topics, so that line of reasoning from above sections is weak also. - BilCat (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is only one example, which has been presented above. It uses "America" or "American" forty-one times, and all refer to the USA. As mentioned above, the specific use of "America" with "Columbus" is one of the rare exceptions, and even then, the BBC article uses "Americas". RGloucester — ☎ 02:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
BilCat, yes, the hatnote is short, but there are to be four(!) of them, four hatnotes to four disambiguation pages. The header of an important article is becoming its own disambiguation page.
Thank you RGloucester. To be accurate, it only uses "America " 13 times, and the first occurrence is not until after 241 words, following a non-"America" title and very repetitive, alliterative cadence of some other non-ambiguous form of "America*" in nearly every sentence. By the 242th word, the article is clearly not about the continent, and the writer relaxes his discipline.
"the specific use of "America" with "Columbus" is one of the rare exceptions"? Really. Google search "Columbus discovered America in". How many tens of thousands of hits. Even if you want to divide by the number of returns for "Columbus discovered the Americas in"... Clearly not "rare". Your example contains zero uses of "americas".
And anyway, he is a columnist. Wikipedia should aspire to be more correct with word usage. What do more factually authoritative sources do? http://www.britannica.com/place/United-States is more careful with its use of the byname. On first use in passing ("immigrants who by and large have come to America hoping"), use of USA would be incorrect/anachronistic, and immediately after feels the need for an aside: "(It should be noted that although the terms “America” and “Americans” are often used as synonyms for the United States and its citizens, respectively, they are also used in a broader sense for North, South, and Central America collectively and their citizens.)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The hatnote I'm referring to is ""America" redirects here. For landmass comprising North and South America, see Americas. For other uses, see America (disambiguation)." That's a standard format used on primary topics, and it is all that is needed in a hatnote. - BilCat (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
That's all that's needed? Your proposing removing the existing "For other uses, see US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), and United States (disambiguation)."? Shouldn't you raise that proposal on the talk page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm just referring to the America hatnote. I don't think the number of other hatnotes is relevant to this discussion. We use as many hatnotes as is needed. - BilCat (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The proposal is to add a fourth hatnote to another page. The existence of three current hatnotes can't be ignored. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
How many hatnotes an article has is irrelevant to whether or not the United States is the primary topic for America. - BilCat (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Pointing out that it does not meet the PrimaryTopic criterion is the point of the main section above. The point in this section is to point out that it not so easy to use more and more hatnotes to accommodate the problems of expansive definitions of PrimaryTopic. "America" is not the primary topic for the well used term, historically and scholarly, for the geographical land mass and the populated place preceding 1776. Placing yet more hatnote, so as to catch readers who know the USA article is not at America but who get sent to the USA article anyway compounds prime real estate obfuscation of that page, creating more problem than was attempted to be solved, and thus Aoidh's post of 08:07, 13 July 2015 should be read as opposition to the proposed move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The existence of the landmass isn't even commonly known amongst anglophones, who adhere to the seven continent model. The two continents are considered seperate, as North America and South America, not as one "America". "America" is used to refer to the country, in media and common usage. That makes it the primary topic. I can understand if you are a proponent of the six continent model, but that simply isn't used in anglophony at large. In Britain, the national curriculum specifies the seven continent model. Australia is likewise. There is no evidence of contemporary anglophony using the five continent model. The primary topic is clear, based on common usage in the media, academia, &c. Surely The Herald didn't mean that The Right Honourable Prime Minister wanted to help a "landmass"? Regardless, your position on hatnotes is not supported by policy. The relevant guidelines and policies, WP:DAB, WP:HAT, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, support their use. We are not going to make an exception to the use of hatnotes for your sake. Please change the relevant policies and guidelines, and then complain. As of now, using a hatnote would be both supported by policy and the most conventional practice on Wikipedia today for matters like this. RGloucester — ☎ 13:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

What a primary topic looks like

I've compiled a sample of disambiguation pages to see under which conditions a name is promoted to primary topic regarding usage. I've selected semi-randomly some names of places from discussions I remembered. This is what I got:

Ambiguous term Currently has a primary topic? Most visited Second most visited Ratio first/second Relation between two most visited topics
Boston (disambiguation) Yes Boston, Massachusetts 327818 visits Geography Boston (band)*

98347 visits Entertainment

3.33 Second topic took its name from the most visited
Chicago (disambiguation) Yes Chicago, Illionis 457522 visits Geography Chicago (band) 116813 visits Entertainment 3.9 Second topic took its name from the most visited
Richmond No Richmond, Virginia 95326 visits Geography Richmond, London 26575 visits Geography 3.5 US place took name from UK place
A Coruña (disambiguation) Yes A Coruña** 43830 visits Geography Province of A Coruña 2761 visits Geography 15.8 Second topic (the province) took name from first (the city)
Lorca No Federico García Lorca 54165 visits Author Lorca, Spain 3354 visits Geography 16.14 Surname (at the first topic) originates from the city (second topic)
America No US (country)

32157 visits*** Geography

Americas (continent)

7898 visits*** Geography

4.07 First topic took name from the second

* The second article in the Geography category is Greater Boston, with 33785 visits in the last 90 days (aprox. 1/10 the main topic). [20] The name originally came from Boston, Lincolnshire, whose article got 19973 visits (1/16). [21]

** There's an article linked from the disambiguation page, Deportivo de La Coruña with 61719 visits,[22] but that's commonly referred to as "Depor", not "A coruña".

*** Here we have data of the redirects from users arriving to the disambiguation page by searching for the term "America"


This sample shows that choice of a primary topic varies widely, and it's not always related to usage alone. In fact, a significant factor seems to be whether the most visited topic gives its name to the second most-visited, or vice-versa, and whether they belong to the same or different categories, more than the difference in visitors. In cases where there is a primary topic with a small difference in number visits it seems to be because the most visited has an original name, like Chicago, or the second most visited gets its name from the first and belongs to a different category (Chicago (band) and Boston (band)).

When two articles belong in the same category, you need a difference of at least 10x more visits (that between Boston, Massachusetts and Greater Boston, which took its name from the former). If the most visited article is a US city which took its name from a British one, it needs to have at least 16x more visitors (the difference between Boston, Massachusetts and Boston, Lincolnshire). The difference of 3.5x between Richmond, Virginia and Richmond, London is not enough to make the former a primary topic despite its highest usage. In the case of Federico García Lorca the author, the article doesn't get primary topic despite having 16.14x more visitors than the geographic place it took his surname from, and having a higher ratio than A Coruña - which is a primary topic despite having a lower difference in usage.

In the case of this discussion, we have a precise count of users that searched for the term "America" thanks to the redirects from the disambiguation page, which gives us a difference of about 4x for the most visited topic. Given that the US of A took its name from the second topic, the continent, it places the article in the class of those who would need a much higher difference to justify displacing the original meaning of the term.

Moreover, I've checked the differences of usage for both redirects, and there are peaks on particular days where the difference is not that pronounced. Look what happened on the 21st of April, where Americas (continent) got 181 visitors, and US (country) got a (fairly average) result of 406 visits. That makes the latter only 2.24 times more looked for than the first; placing the U.S. as the primary topic would have sent roughly 32% of its users to the wrong article on such day. Compare it with a day where usage is favorable to the U.S. such as the 4th of July, where the U.S. got 599 visits from this page, and the Americas got 123. That's a ratio of at most 4.85x more visitors, or 17% of false positives - users sent to the wrong place because of the primary topic. That's an unacceptable high error rate for a primary topic where both articles belong to the same category and the most visited took its name from the second.

As I said, the sample I got above is in no way exhaustive. If you have some other examples of ambiguous article titles that get or not to be primary topics, please bring them here for comparison. We could use them to suggest further criteria and even try to establish a guideline that makes choosing a primary topic a more homogeneous task. Diego (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't really say much, especially when the crux of your argument is based on page view stats which, as shown previously, can and have been manipulated in regards to these redirects. Even with that in mind, however, the idea that 5,000 page views in the past 60 days shows anywhere near the same primacy as 20,000 page views is your opinion, one for which you do not have a consensus, unless you have some policy, guideline, or even local consensus somewhere that backs up your claim that "you need a difference of at least 10x more visits". - Aoidh (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Your claim to reject the above analysis is that the statistics are being manipulated? The numbers above show numbers of visitors maintained consistently for the last 90 days in 15 different articles, way before this move request started, and are kept at roughly the same levels if you visit previous months at their statistics history.
The local consensus is in cases like Richmond, Lorca or Madonna, where differences in visitors close to or even higher than the one at America are not considered enough to move to primary topic when the most visited article takes its name from the older article. This is what the above table looks for Madonna:
Ambiguous term Currently has a primary topic? Most visited Second most visited Ratio first/second Relation between two most visited topics
Madonna No Madonna (entertainer) 574654 visits

Artist

Mary (mother of Jesus)

103651 visits History & Religion

4.39 Most visited topic took its name from the second

Diego (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

So your claim of consensus is based on an apples to oranges comparison with other articles? An entertainer, active for 36 years, compared to a religious figure thousands of years old is not comparable to a landmass whose name usage is hundreds of years old compared to a country whose name usage is hundreds of years old, and the move discussion for the example you gave is highly indicative of that. Each circumstance is judged on its own merits, as each has circumstances unique to that discussion. Even in the move discussions, most of the oppose arguments in the Madonna move requests were based on the merits of the articles, not page view statistics, nor did I see anything close to the claim that "you need a difference of at least 10x more visits" even mentioned, let alone a consensus formed about it. - Aoidh (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
So, what are the aspects that are unique to this discussion that would form the base of a consensus for the move? Those articles have in common that they are not primary topics, and the argument of primacy by volume of usage (the only one made for the current move) was not considered relevant in them. The only consensus we have recorded is that you need the topic to be "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"; the above examples illustrate to what degree editors in those discussions regarded such likeness in terms of usage.
If you want to compare just similar things, the Richmond example is a Geography-Geography comparison where the most visited article for the hundreds-years-old US city took its name from an hundreds-years-older previously existing location, so that one would be an apples to apples comparison; and it does have a disambiguation page at the base name. Diego (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
On the basis of historical significance in the English language alone, this is clearly the primary topic. The existence of a "landmass" called "America" is not even widely accepted in anglophone usage, given that we adhere to the seven continent model. We have no article called "America" referring to a landmass. We have the Americas, which is how the two continents are referred to in English. They are not referred to as "America", except in rare specialist and archaic usage. "America" as referring to the thirteen colonies and subsequent country, is not a "new usage". It has historical significance, going back at least until the 1600s. The idea that those who fought for independence from Britain as "Americans" were referring to a landmass, rather than to their domain, is a nonsense. This has been the standard usage for at least 300 years. Can we please get with the programme? RGloucester — ☎ 14:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just to clarify on how unreliable the page view statistics are, this user subpage I created recieved 719 page views yesterday alone, compared to 308 and 100. I assure you that 719 people did not view that subpage yesterday. It was painfully simple to inflate the page views on that user subpage, and as the previous move request showed, someone had no issue manipulating the numbers on the Americas redirect. This is precisely why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC warns against relying on pageviews to the extent that the table above is relying on them; they can indicate primacy, but they ultimately mean nothing. - Aoidh (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you referring to this peak of usage discussed in that move request, which coincided with the period when that redirect was linked from the disambiguation page? ([23], [24]) The table of statistics doesn't depend on any particular peak of usage at any particular period, like the one-day sample in your sandbox, but on the sustained number of visitors through long periods (except for my analysis of two specific days, which is anecdotal to illustrate the extreme cases rather than core to the argument).
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC actually recommends article traffic statistics, it only suggests to avoid them as the only criterion (which I didn't do - I rely on the categories of the topics and relations between them, as well as the corpus of English books and academic articles that I've linked before). Unless you suggest that someone has been artificially generating hundreds of daily visits to Americas (continent), and has been careful enough to avoid doing it precisely on those days that the redirect was removed from the disambiguation page (1st to 15th of October), and has been doing the same to random unrelated DABs such as Richmond, I don't see any evidence for suspecting that these pageviews have been manipulated for several years at a stretch. Diego (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

América

I just created the redirect because there was no need for it before this page was moved. The fact that it is listed below is irrelevant, it is the primary topic of a term that is being disambiguated on this page. "América" is used in the title of multiple articles, so how does MOS:DABOTHERLANG apply? Rob984 (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No such word exists in the English language. If you are interesting in contributing to Wikipedia in foreign languages, please consider joining one of the other Wikipedias. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The redirect is just fine. There are multitudes of foreign language terms in the English Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd redirect it to the dab page, no questions asked. Red Slash 20:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. If "América" only refers to the Americas in foreign languages, then it can't be the primary topic in English. RGloucester, I don't know why you are being a condecending arse, my edit was entirely technical per the América redirect. Also, there are a number of articles titled "América" (eg América, Tamaulipas). Unless there is a different primary topic, we should redirect América here, or create a new disambiguation page. Rob984 (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The current state (at the time I write this) is that América and América (disambiguation) both redirect to America (disambiguation). I think this is correct; English speakers are unlikely to recognize the two forms as different words, even if they would be treated as such in some other languages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup. I don't know why RGloucester wants to delete the redirect. There are about 10 articles with "América" in the title listed here. Rob984 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

America redirects to America now. Larry Sanger's mistake has been erased.

I think I can retire from Wikipedia now. What more is there to do? Red Slash 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed this when replying to an ongoing discussion started weeks earlier on the US talk page. Kudos, Red Slash. I missed this one, but participated heavily in the 2013 discussion you started and I initiated the near simultaneous one that resulted in the US being moved to the top of the America disambiguation page (a step in the right direction). It's amazing how much time and effort it can take to get such small--yet important--changes enacted. VictorD7 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this discussion finally got where we couldn't back then, though I do think your parallel discussion was important and well-timed, too. Get yourself a nice little slice of apple pie and go watch a baseball game, VictorD7. Congrats and thank you. Red Slash 20:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
What's next? Redirecting American to Americans? Note that Larry-boy was the second editor on that one, though that title was charged later to make room for the current DAB page. - BilCat (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
"American" is genuinely ambiguous, just as with French or German. "American", as a general purpose adjective, can refer to the country, the citizens of the country, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Notice British is equally ambiguous. Of the "big three" titles, American is the one I'd expect to never see a consensus to change on. Like you said, it's absolutely used to both refer to America and Americans (which are the other two major ones). There's no further work to be done, barring an RM to get United States here. But that can be undertaken by someone else Red Slash 21:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yet Canadian redirects to Canadians, Australian redirects to Australians, Belgian redirects to Belgium, and Jamaican redirects to Jamaican Patois,so consensus has be reached in similar cases. Note that French and German are also the names of languages in English, which is the primary reason those terms are ambiguous. Canadian, Australian, American, and Belgian aren't the names of languages. - BilCat (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
"American" can refer to American English, in some contexts. Regardless, I think the present situation is more ideal. I think it is odd that "Australian" links to "Australians", as "Australian" in reference to something like the "Australian government" is obviously not referring to the people. No reason to go about mincing, however. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

in See also, change "American (disambiguation) and Americans (disambiguation)" to "American (disambiguation)"

Good call. -- Irn (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Central America

The article says: "Geography: The Americas, a landmass comprising North and South America". I think should also include Central America. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.189.187 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No need, as Central America is part of the continent of North America. - BilCat (talk) 01:03, September 12, 2015

Amerigo Vespucci should be under people

It's what I was looking for on this page, and there's absolutely no reason for it not to be here. 24.67.7.116 (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

He's listed in the "See also" section, since he's not one of the things called "America" that need to be disambiguated. Deor (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Amerika as separate dab page

According to WP:DPAGE, disambiguation pages normally include "variant spellings" and "variant forms of names." It seems rather odd to me that items listed as "Amerika" would be separated from this page. If I hear about a city, a novel, a song or a boat with a name pronounced "America" and I look it up, I'm going to end up on this page. I'll browse through the listings, and likely not notice that, hidden among the long list of "see also" at the very bottom, there's a link to separate disambiguation page for a different spellings of the same word, a spelling that I'm unlikely to know applies to the item I'm looking for. For the sake of usefulness, it seems to me to make sense to list these items all together on one page. The current situation makes no more sense than having separate disambiguation pages for things called "Honor" and things called "Honour" - Themightyquill (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

America in the dictionary and its etymological origin

The dictionary of Oxford says:

"1. A land mass of the western hemisphere consisting of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama."

Even wikipedia itself has some content about the origin of the word:

'Amerigo Vespucci (...) was an Italian explorer, financier, navigator and cartographer who first demonstrated that Brazil and the West Indies did not represent Asia's eastern outskirts as initially conjectured from Columbus' voyages, but instead constituted an entirely separate landmass hitherto unknown to Old Worlders. Colloquially referred to as the New World, this second super continent came to be termed "America", deriving its name from Americus, the Latin version of Vespucci's first name.'

My understanding is that "America" is the name of a continent. "South America", "Central America" and "North America" are derivatives.

"United States of America" is ALSO a derivative. It is in the name: "of America". I can easily illustrate the issue arguing that if the country were located in Asia it would be called "United States of Asia".

The lack of a better name for the country is a lousy excuse to take possession of a continent's name.

I disagree with the assertion that English speakers automatically mean "United States of America". I don't and I know many people who also do not.

"America" should always redirect to the disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianmariot2 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many times, and the arguments you've made aren't new. In common English-language usage, America generally refers to the United States. This is true in all native varieties of English (US-American, British, Canadian, Australian, etc.), and in most varieties of English spoken in other countries. The main exception is Latin America and some countries in Europe, mainly those with languages derived from Latin. If you're from one of those countries, then it's understandable that you don't know many people who use America to mean the United States, but worldwide, that's a minority usage. Or do your really think that when the leaders of Iran shout "Death to America!", they don't mean only the United States? - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
America meaning the United States is an informal term. Should bike redirect to bycicle? Piaractus (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it would redirect to Bicycle! And it would do that if it were the primary topic for Bike. It's not, so Bike is a disambiguation page that includes Bicycle and Motorcycle. - BilCat (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Circular referencing in the disambiguation of the word

The first line of this article has been (as of 22:53, 4 March 2021‎):

'America is a short-form name for the United States of America.'

The WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT has been evoked to justify why this should be correct.

However, the above policy is about the validity of redirect links, which are not questioned at all. The problem is instead that a disambiguation attempt on the many meanings of a word is using the ambiguous word itself as a link to one of its meanings, which is the equivalent to a circular referencing.

There are no other circular referencings like this anywhere else in the article, and there are many other instances in which this error could have been made, with equal invalidity.

Therefore, the correct way to define (and link) the word America to the short-form name for the United States of America should be:

'America is a short-form name for the United States of America.'

Open for discussion.

Sophos II (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a (disambiguation) page, the point is that (in a general context) the term is not ambiguous. Thus the link should be on the term America, which redirects to United States. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
'The term is not ambiguous', really? This is hilarious to read on a talk page that is about, precisely, the disambiguation of a term... Sophos II (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The point is that it is the primary topic for the term, not that there is no ambiguity. But in general, with a primary topic the link is on the term being disambiguated, even when it is a redirect. That can be seen in the examples at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The page Danzig (disambiguation) links to Danzig in the lead even though it is a redirect to Gdańsk. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Precisely, Danzig (in German) and Gdańsk (in Polish) designate unambiguously exactly the same city in two different languages, so the redirect there is totally justified, notably for strong historical reasons.
America on the other hand is an ambiguous denomination, because it designates different geographical extensions, including in different languages (refer to the dissimilar situation of Danzig/Gdańsk between German and Polish denominations: what does 'America' mean in Spanish vs English for example?), and also for historical and cultural reasons. As an example, the Organization of American States is not an organisation of the United States of America, and South America is not a part of "America" (in the sense, the USA), which by the way is just one of several countries of North America.
The Danzig/Gdańsk is a terribly irrelevant example on which to justify the shortening of the name United States of America to just "America", especially for this disambiguation article. Sophos II (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
No, not irrelevant at all. This is just standard practice when there is a primary topic redirect. The guidance at MOS:DABPRIMARY is perhaps clearer: When the primary topic article has a different title than the term being disambiguated, then the first line normally uses a redirect from the ambiguous term to link to that article. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, the MOS:DABPRIMARY rule does indeed perfectly apply here, I stand corrected, much better than the Danzig/Gdańsk analogy, historical and cultural synonyms that nobody would contest. Thank you for the discussion. Sophos II (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Pick any page that ends in "(disambiguation)", and it looks similar. Dog (disambiguation) has a lot of alternatives, but without context changing your priors, you probably wouldn't be confused about what a speaker is referring to. WilyD 13:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I suggest to follow the meaning and order defined by reputable dictionaries like Merriam-Webster: America | Definition of America by Merriam-Webster
"1 either continent (North America or South America) of the western hemisphere
2 or the Americas \ ə-​ˈmer-​ə-​kəz , -​ˈme-​rə-​ \ the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, and South America and the West Indies
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
Clearly 1 and 2 outrank the meaning 3.
I would also like to reference the Real Academia Española, as most of America speaks Spanish, and the RAE explains how reducing America to the USA is offensive:
Estados Unidos | Diccionario panhispánico de dudas
If you don't speak Spanish I suggest you use a translator.
It is also worthwhile noting, most other Wikipedia Language Versions redirect to the continents or americas.
Here are some examples:
Given the sensitivity of this topic in regards to political correctness, for consistency with other Wikipedia Languages and out of respect for the rest of America, I strongly suggest to either make America a disambiguation page or to redirect to the Americas.
--Snowjaeger (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Check the interwikis, they're also disambigs. It may come as a surprise, but different languages are different, so the different words work differently. This is English Wikipedia, so it's written in English. If other Wikpedias are redirecting to the Americas, then you're looking at a different word (which is unsurprising, as different languages have different words, which they spell, use, and pronounce differently). Although of course, I live in a part of the Americas where referring to the Americas as America would be totally unacceptable and offensive. That other languages have colonialist attitudes embedded in them is, frankly, their own problem. WilyD 23:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

Maybe we should change the first part to something like: 'America refers to the continent of North-, Central- and South-America combined. It is also a short-form name for the USA.'

This way we first get the literal meaning of the term, the definition, and then the way it's often used. 2A02:A453:BEC7:1:6CBD:51D2:5DEE:211D (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. BilCat (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America_(disambiguation)/Archive_6&oldid=1144891019"