Talk:North America

Edit African slaves to enslaved Africans. "African slaves" continues to dehumanize Africans who were trafficked and brought to North America. Enslaved Africans humanizes and accounts for the atrocities done to African people who were trafficked all over the world, particularly North America. 2604:CA00:169:49C2:0:0:1266:7243 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Heres an idea, how about in the info box, we have a link to the wikivoyage article. Someonehere12345 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

nevermind, I see we already have it. Someonehere12345 (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article has a C rating, I am making changes following the format of the Europe article which has a B rating. Doing more to standardize the formatting of this article to Europe's makes perfect sense. Drocj (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which part of WP:B? do your edits actually address? The article has a defined structure, and I do not see how said structure fails to present its content in an appropriately understandable way. Simply copying what other articles do without any deeper reasoning is not how to go about making improvements, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. What's more, your change introduced the basic error of making "Geology" a subtopic of "Geography". Both articles are perfectly adequate in this regard, and consistency between them here just doesn't matter at all. Worry about what will benefit this article specifically. Remsense ‥ 论 00:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If my edits are being immediately reverted contrary to (WP:AGF)(WP:BRD) before I can make further corrections I won't bother wasting my time. If correcting a heading results in (WP:EW) suit yourself. Drocj (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You were bold, I reverted, we're discussing. Remsense ‥ 论 00:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The United States and Canada are not "natural characteristics" either, they are man-made countries. That's also a "basic error." Drocj (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Huh? It's just describing the natural geography geology (typo here, sorry!) within those more specific regions. You're getting a bit confused about different subdivisions existing for different reasons here. Remsense ‥ 论 00:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If they are specific regions then they should be defined in the geological context. Look at a Geologic Map in the National Atlas of the United States of America. The geologic provinces are:

1. Central Interior Region
2. Appalachian and Ouachita Mountain Systems
3. Coastal Plain Province
4. Cordilleran Mountain System
5. Aleutian–Alaska Range Mountain System

etc. Drocj (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's perfectly reasonable in certain situations to divide discussion of geology along non-natural boundaries, as the discussion remains one about geology. Many sources do this. However, I am also not at all opposed to your restructuring idea if you find it superior. Remsense ‥ 论 01:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

you just said geology is not a subtopic of geography, you're just contradicting yourself. Drocj (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, I think you're confusing the two cases. The implied structure for each case here is

1. Geography
   1. Geology (sub-topic of Geography, which is wrong)
      1. (The geology of the) United States (which is fine)
      2. (The geology of) Canada

etc. Remsense ‥ 论 01:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Europe's article has Geology as a subtopic of Geography, maybe it is you who should explain the inconsistency here before immediately reverting the edit? Drocj (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You asked for clarification and I was happy to oblige. My explanation is that geology is not a subtopic of geography, regardless of whether any given article is structured to imply that it is. I don't see why I'm responsible for errors that may or may not be present on other articles when I've only acted to make sure there's no errors added to this article; I noticed this was the case and acted accordingly. It would require extra deliberation for me to figure out what I would change about Europe, but I'm editing this article right now, not that one. Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

ge·og·ra·phy

noun

1. the study of the physical features of the earth and its atmosphere, and of human activity as it affects and is affected by these, including the distribution of populations and resources, land use, and industries.

ge·ol·o·gy

noun

1. the science that deals with the earth's physical structure and substance, its history, and the processes that act on it.

In this context its entirely appropriate to make a the science of the continent's tectonic structure a subtopic of it's physical features. Outside of this context they are indeed separate things. Drocj (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It remains the case that one is not a subtopic of the other; physical geography is a wholly distinct discipline from geology. I would probably retitle "Geology" to "Geological history" since that is what is being discussed as to inform the broader discussion of physical geography, but again I may need to think more about it. Remsense ‥ 论 01:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone provide information that they think could be missing from the article to prevent it warranting a B rating? We should brainstorm ways to improve the article if it could use improvement. If you think the article is sufficient for a B rating, please reply to this topic and indicate that. Thanks! Drocj (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply