Talk:North America

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived discussions

Cities[edit]

Montreal should replace Vancouver. (WT-en) Zepppep 13:16, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Why? Vancouver has always been a popular tourist destination in Canada, but especially after the 2010 Winter Olympics. I don't think Montreal is as popular internationally (for tourism) as Vancouver. I say this as a Torontonian, so I don't have a bias in favour of either city. (WT-en) londonHK 16:08, 9 March 2012 (EST)
It shouldn't replace Vancouver or Toronto but Montreal should definitely be featured as a North American travel destination. It has a rich historic and cultural heritage and is quite unique. I don't think it can rival Toronto or Vancouver in its European ambiance. The cuisine is diverse. Summer is festival season - Jazz and Comedy to start. Winter has hockey, proximity to skiing in the Laurentian's and eastern townships, tobogganing on Mount Royal and skating in the old port. Old Montreal itself is just a beautiful place to stroll,admire the architecture, go for a caleche ride or eat at one of the many restaurants. Of course there is the charm of French overall but Montreal's Chinatown and Little Italy are also great for cultural and culinary exploration. There are several Museums as well as the Biodome built in the old Olympic installation, the Botanical Garden (considered one of the most important in the world )and of course there's great shopping. Great hotels, great restaurants, great entertainment ( even a casino which Toronto doesn't have or at least not yet). It is also features a huge convention centre and regularly hosts international events. —The preceding comment was added by 66.131.142.44 (talkcontribs)
Yes, but we're limited to nine cities. Which one would you replace with Montreal? LtPowers (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
How was Vancouver chosen in the first place? I don't see the discussion here. I would think Montreal or Quebec City would be of similar interest to tourists so some debate might be useful. There's also only one Mexican city on the list which seems odd to me since its a much bigger country and I would have thought a bigger tourist draw. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
We try to have a good geographic spread, which is why Kingston and Panama City are on the list, despite being not terribly exciting destinations. If we were to change the list, I think the most sensible city to drop might be Vancouver, in favor of probably Montreal or Cancún. We could also swap out Kingston, on the basis that the Caribbean is represented adequately by Havana, and I would guess that Kingston is the city here that sees the least international visitors by far. --Peter Talk 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Kingston definitely looks out of place. Panama City probably does too. LtPowers (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I would agree that Panama City isn't as much of a destination as a lot of cities that got left off, but removing it would leave Central America without any representation. Cancun is a good idea, but is it of interest to people outside of North America? I've never been there, but I always pictured it as full of Americans. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The drunken beach party scene is all about U.S. college students + sleazeballs with expensive video cameras, but Cancún is the main jumping off point to explore the Yucatan Peninsula, which is one of the best tourist destinations on the continent (Mayan ruins, diving, caving, cenotes, colonial towns, Mayan villages, spectacular beaches, delicious regional cuisine, etc.). --Peter Talk 22:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Yucatan is already represented with Chichen Itza in the Other Destinations. LtPowers (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
What about Guadalajara? Or is it too close to Mexico City? The article is at guide status. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

[unindent] I think Montreal should definitely be in the article, as its French-Canadian culture is unique (I prefer Quebec City as a place to visit, but I'd have trouble arguing for it over the much bigger Montreal at this level). I like the idea of a 2nd Mexican city. Guadalajara is 5 hours, 19 minutes' drive from Mexico City according to Google Maps, so not too close, in my opinion, but I also understand the merit of a Yucateca city being listed. As for Central America, there's San José (Costa Rica), which is at usable, and Guatemala City, also usable. I think those would be more likely alternatives to Panama City than Tegucigalpa and San Salvador, which don't seem like major tourist destinations. Costa Rica is a very popular vacation spot, so San Jose might be a good alternative to Panama City. I do think Havana is probably OK as the sole representative of the Caribbean.

It's difficult to pare this kind of list to 9 cities, as good arguments could be made for Chicago, and also for Miami or/and New Orleans as Caribbean cities (though Miami is actually on the Atlantic). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the only reason Montreal isn't on the list is geography; if we tie up four out of nine slots with cities within 500 miles of New York, that leaves a very empty rest-of-the-continent. LtPowers (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Not to derail the current discussion, but I remain of the opinion that we should simply remove the city and other destination lists for continent articles and use the "See" and "Do" sections of the continent article to write about important cities and explain why a traveler would want to visit them. The linked discussion provides more in-depth reasoning, but I don't think it's a productive use of editor time or much value to readers to maintain an arbitrary list of nine cities for such large regions. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Limit of 9[edit]

So, I followed the comment limiting the number of cities and other destinations to nine each, but what is the reasoning behind that? I know a lot of people from Europe who visit, and many of the locations listed simply aren't ones they care about. Some of them are just plain terrible, too (Niagara Falls is great for an hour on the Maid of the Mist, and then spending the rest of the day shopping for tourist trinkets you will give away to family members who don't want them).

If we're going to limit it to nine (why nine and not ten, like a top-ten list?) I think we should have some objective reason for picking the top cities/destinations, like how many tourists visit each location per year. Otherwise the list is just a favorites list of whomever controls the page. This is a wikimedia project, not some moderator's travel blog. --Kerkeslager (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Our Manual of Style limits lists like city/other destination lists to 7±2, based on Miller's Law which is a concept in psychology that humans' working memory is generally limited to 7±2 items. Setting limits for any list would arbitrary, so why not 100 or 1000 or every page in North America. Objective lists aren't necessarily better than lists chosen by the community, because the idea behind the "city" & "other destinations" lists are that they showcase a variety of important destinations. It would be difficult to come up with an objective methodology for such lists, as finding a list (especially for "other destinations") of most-visited would be difficult and the majority of the list would be composed of U.S. destinations and not showcase destinations in Canada, Mexico, Central America, or the Caribbean. It's also not simply about destinations people from one region care about...I'm sure most Americans don't care about Berlin, Istanbul, Moscow, or any of Europe's other destinations, except the Alps or Stonehenge. Again, the two lists should showcase diversity: geographic & types of places (not all national parks or tropical cities). If you object to any of the listings, feel free to start a discussion here. AHeneen (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't take issue with the specific items chosen, I take issue with HOW they were chosen. I agree that objective lists aren't better than ones chosen by the community, but I don't agree that they were chosen by the community. I don't know how they were chosen. And that's the problem: I want to see more transparency about how these decisions were made, especially since the kind of publicity that one gets by being one of the top nine cities in North America according to Wikivoyage gets you would definitely attract manipulation from cities looking to attract tourism. --Kerkeslager (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They were chosen by whoever first chose them, and then whoever joined in the discussion about whether they were good choices. That's the basic nature of a wiki. To change them, we discuss per Wikivoyage:Consensus. If you would like to propose some changes, then this discussion will become a good, transparent illustration of how such items are chosen ;) --Peter Talk 01:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

VFD Discussion[edit]

South America / North America[edit]

  • Delete South America or North America is not a valid definition of continent. There are only five continents in the world. Africa, America, Asia, Europe and Oceania. Some may consider Antartica another continent. However its mainly in the United States that this separation exists because of the co-mingling of the word America (referring to the United States itself) and the American continent. The United Nations, the Olympic Committee and other international organizations only recognize five continents.

The first page of Wikivoyage should reflect this definition.

I think they are useful travel regions. It's not relevant to travel whether they count as separate continents. --Peter Talk 05:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikivoyage uses the common definition of regions, even if the official one differs. Plus, North and South America are extremely different both geographically and culturally. Hawaiian Eskimo (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep Please pardon me for saying so, but the reasoning behind the argument to delete seems absurd to me. In no sense - neither geographic, political, historical, traditional, nor cultural - is there a single continent of "America." If anything, one could make a strong argument for a third continent of Central America, based on tectonic plates. But Central America is grouped more with North than South America. Nor, by the way, do I know of any geographer who questions Antarctica as a continent. You could make a much stronger argument for Eurasia being a continent, but we're not going to delete Europe, either. Tourists visit Europe, South America, Australia, etc. - all continents. And we would serve the traveler in what way be eliminating the articles about these continents?? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Do you also plan to delete Southern Africa and Northern Africa? In many cases, it is useful to have an article about a group of countries even if the group of countries might not officially count as a "continent". --Stefan2 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. They are logical groupings that travelers will recognize. Globe-trotter (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not the travellers' concern whether they constitute actual continents or not. They are useful and often used distinctions. Texugo (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: If Northern and Southern California have articles, so to should North and South America. Regardless of whether they are continents are not, they are well-known geographic distinctions. This isn't the proper place to discuss the merits of this being designated Purplebackpack89 04:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "keep" while some country's schools teach a world model where there is only one American continent, most of the world sees N and S America as very different. Frankly, Central America is not seen as being in North America by most Canadians. JadeDragon (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: Speedy keep. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Azores[edit]

There have been repeated edits to add the Azores to this article, but as they are already included in the Islands of the Atlantic Ocean article, since they are 2100 miles from North America, and since they are most closely aligned with Portugal I don't think this is appropriate. Starting a discussion in the hopes of ending the current edit war. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, only two of the islands are on the North American tectonic plate, so I can't see a strong geographic argument for including the archipelago in North America. But from a traveler's perspective, the islands are culturally European, most easily accessed from Europe, and the inhabitants speak Portuguese. I think the case is clear. LtPowers (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The two islands have a combined population of 4,400. The Azores have a total population of 246,000. At any rate, the islands as a whole are part of Islands of the Atlantic Ocean not North America nor Europe. AHeneen (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


Only the western end of the archipellago is in America, the division of the European and American plates runs through the Açores. The islands are Portuguese territory but with a very distinct and unique Atlantic culture.

As for European culture, with that reasoning one could also say the USA have European culture... And since when is Portuguese culture European? It started in Europe but it is much more than that. It has a celtic-latic-goth-arabic kinda complicated root sure, but in Portuguese culture and language one can find influences of the entire world, globalization started in the 1400's for Portugal, that's what made this semi-artificial country (originally with an old pre-Roman people who only got independence as a prototype Israel for Templars and Crusaders) so radically different from Spain (altough still similar in border regions to our language's celtic motherland of Galicia, still Spanish) If you go to Malaysia for one you can find some people who look Asian, have never been to Europe but call themselves Portuguese to the bone (the Kristang people), same kind of people can be found in India, Sri Lanka, China, some places of Africa... so "being Portuguese" isn't synonimous with "being European", whatever that is. Is St Pierre and Miquelon going to be on the European page from now on? They are French and proud to be so, they talk French, are they European? They have the exact same political status of the Azores (ultra-peripheral regions of the European Union) and are European citizens, and also like people from Corvo and Flores, they live in North America.

By the way (so language isn't an issue) 80% of Portuguese speakers are in America, South America to be more specific. FernãoMendesPinto (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You aren't going to win this argument, and I don't understand why it's so important to you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your honesty, but be minded that an argument is a battle of thought, not reasoning on one side and "you're not going to win an argument" on the other. You're right, it's not that important in one's life to edit this page, but I'm into precision, and we all can multitask right? Secondly is to raise awareness of the Açores, some of the most beautiful islands I've been. Thirdly, harmless national pride (only activated when attacked), but that doesn't make the other reasons any less valid. FernãoMendesPinto (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I think more to the point is that North Americans generally would never think of the Azores as part of North America, and I find it doubtful that Azoreans would consider themselves to be North Americans. Even if you consider it to be technically part of North America, we are not here to educate people on such technicalities. The traveller comes first, so it is our policy to use the most commonly-used names and denominations for things, not the official or technically correct ones.Texugo (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
re "you aren't going to win this argument", I think Ikan's point is that there isn't a compelling case for including the Azores in North America by any measure - the islands are closer to Europe culturally, politically, and by physical distance, the argument about tectonic plates is tenuous, irrelevant to travel, and might not even pass muster with a geographic society, and most importantly it doesn't make sense to to include an island nation that is located far from land in the middle of the Atlantic in a continent article. We welcome your contributions, but this is a strange battle to be fighting, and if your goal is to "raise awareness of the Açores" then your time would be far better spent adding content to that article rather than waging a hopeless battle to add a line about them to the North America article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Your arguments baffles me, and I agree with the others that the Azores really doesn't have anything to do with North America other than an encyclopaedic technicality of tectonic plates. I know SATA flies to North America these days and all, but still, from a travellers perspective they are squarely in Europe, especially since these flights land on the European plate, if they are to be considered important for some reason. Sertmann (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, everyone. If the earth still stands in millions of years, the continents will drift apart enough for people to consider those two islands America, and then travel literature will be written accordingly. =) As for Azoreans they already do and joke that people in those islands can see New York on the waterfront. It was a good one guys, and the towel was thrown before sour bytes. I guess if there's one thing we can all agree is democracy wins. Cheers FernãoMendesPinto (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Water purity[edit]

n 2008 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tested water in nine states across the country and found that 85 man-made chemicals, including some medications, were commonly slipping through municipal treatment systems and ending up in our tap water. Another report by the Associated Press found trace amounts of dozens of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water supplies of some 46 million Americans. [Unsigned|173.217.70.199]

First, don't put comments in any guide - the Talk page, like this one, is the place to do that, and please sign your posts in talk pages (only) like this ~~~~ and put them at the bottom of the page. Second, regardless of what it does or does not do to long-term residents, I don't think that trace amounts of pharmaceuticals make tap water unsafe for visitors to drink. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month[edit]

Since no one seemed to be doing much to the see and buy sections, I added a little bit about downtown shopping districts and the sheer range of things to see in NA. As an American, my knowledge is pretty US centric so please add info for the rest of the continent. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Other destinations[edit]

I added Gaspé Peninsula and it had been removed. I understand the rule of only 9 for other destinations and cities. However, I think this destination should be part of the list. It is on almost every top places to visit from National Geographic and publications alike. In 2012, National Geographic included it in its Top 10 Winter Adventures Destinations in North America, a season that we seem to forget touristically-wise since almost if not all destinations on these pages are almost only summer-type. More than that, the National Geographic Society included the Gaspé Peninsula in its list of the world 50 places one should visit in a lifetime, and it was the only Canadian destination in that list proving its importance in North America for me. I had also added Montreal, but this is already been discussed higher in this talk page. We should consider it since this is the largest French-speaking city in North America after all. The argument of wanting geographically spread throughout the whole region is understandable, but is a bit 'crappy', since Greenland occupy more area in North American than Carribeans and Central America together, but it has no city listed, which is normal, since there is no real city for tourists there, I agree we should consider geographical spread-out, but we should consider first the importance of each city for tourists. Amqui (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of competing interests to consider. Geography is only one; importance is another, as is popularity. They all have to be balanced. But the most important thing is that when you're suggesting an addition, you also have to suggest a removal, because we're already at our limit for both sections. We can all agree with you that Montreal is a fine destination, and one travelers are likely to be seeking, but without proposing a city to remove, we have no basis on which to judge whether the addition on Montreal would be an improvement or not. LtPowers (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
For the cities, I would remove Kingston to put Montreal. There is already another city in the Caribbeans and the touristic value of Kingston is very limited compared to Montreal. Amqui (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
For the other destinations, I would replace Teotihuacan by the Gaspé Peninsula since there is already Chichen Itza as a similar archaeological site in Mexico (not to say Teotihuacan is not an awesome place to visit, but for the point of 'diversity' we should include something else especially since Tikal is also in the list), while the Gaspé Peninsula and its national parks offer a different types of landscapes and wildlife including herds of caribous, that are not part of any other destinations in that list but are well representative of a part of North America. Amqui (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

I have to say I'm not happy with current banner because of the pale colours and blueish-grayish stain in the middle. My suggestion:

La Sal Mountains Viepoint panoramic view.jpg

Jjtkk (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The current banner has problems (but the lighting in the canyon is fabulous). The issue I would take with your suggestion is that no countries in North America have that type of landscape except the United States. I tried to use a good Grand Canyon image because a) it's an iconic feature of the continent, and b) it has similar, smaller cousins in several other North American countries, so it doesn't give too U.S.-centric a visual. Also, I think the stain you are referring to is just a cloud/rain in the distance, but the fact that you see it as a stain doesn't reflect too well on the image ;) --Peter Talk 06:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Outline status[edit]

What does this article need to move from outline to usable status? Texugo (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Minimally, Mexico, Central America, Caribbean, and Canada need to be brought up to Usable status. LtPowers (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Central America[edit]

Hello, Central America isn't part of North America. See es and pt versions of wikivoyage, and see Wikipedia. Turbo8000 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Turbo8000, see Wikipedia yourself. Have a real good look at the map there, as well as w:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America. Then come back and undo your edits to this article. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
No, that isn't true. North America is not Central America, they are completely different. Turbo8000 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
With such major changes to structure we should discuss first then make the change. I have reverted the edits until there is some agreement here. Also note, just removing a section is not enough to make the change. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Central America is indeed part of North America. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I'm safe in predicting that we aren't going to make a separate continent article for Central America any more than we would make one for the Indian Subcontinent, which is geologically a separate continent from Eurasia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Well there is this, though that actually makes a great deal of sense from a travel standpoint as the five Republics that were part of the United Central America ca. 1825 and to a lesser degree Panama and Belize have a lot of things in common that their neighbors to the North and South don't. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes of course, but it's not a continent article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
From Wikipedia : "Central America (Spanish: América Central, Centroamérica or América del Centro) is the southernmost, isthmian portion of the North American continent" w:Central_America --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Carribean cities[edit]

Kingston (Jamaica) and Havana are cities in the carribean. When I think of North America I do not think of the carribean as it is a distinctly different region. If anything I would associate Carribean with Central America. If I was travelling to the carribean I'd go straight to the carribean books in a book store, I wouldn't think to look in North America, as my understanding of North America is Canada, Mexico and USA (plus possibly Greenland). I am sure this subject has been argued to death but I'm keen to understand the thought process. Jdlrobson (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't associate the Caribbean with Central America at all, but since Central America is part of North America, too, I don't think that advances your argument. The Caribbean is already treated as a separate region, in any case. You aren't proposing treating Central America as a separate continent, are you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there an article which defines how these regions came about? It just surprised me to be honest to see a city from Carribean in a travel article about North America. What would you call the region that is not Carribean, not South America and not Central America? To me this is North America. Most travel books and sites use North America to encapsulate Mexico, USA and Canada, for example: lonely planet, travel independent, rough guides. This is how I think of North America (maybe it's a cultural thing?) but right now I'm a little confused with what page I would go to just to learn about these three countries. At this point I'm not arguing either way, as I said I'm keen to understand the thought process and if there are any pages explaining how the project arrived with these categorisations. Shouldn't we be trying to be consistent with other guidebooks? Jdlrobson (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The region that only contains the US Mexico and Canada could be called "NAFTA". If you divide America into two continents (which is not global consensus, mind you) a "North-South" dichotomy makes more sense than dividing it up into three or even four parts. Soccer has done a similar thing, with the US playing - among others - Panama or Cuba in qualifying rounds (though on the other hand a qualification round for only "NAFTA" would be sorta pointless). If not part of North America, what are the Caribbean and Mainland Central America? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Jdlrobson, did you look at the "Regions" section of this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC
Yes I did. This is what confused me. The problem I have is I know many people who have planned overland trips around North America and look for inspiration about where to go. They usually buy Lonely planet guidebooks which cover these three big countries. These trips usually involve taking a train from Vancouver or Montreal to America and a border crossing in San Diego. Never do these trips head into the Carribean (and if they do I'd recommend they get a carribean specific book anyhow). Reducing a region so big to 9 top places is a shame. Imagine if there was no South East Asia region and the only way you could explore travel around this region was on the Asia page. It would be very limited and miss many of the highlights. Is there a page on Wikivoyage solely for the region of USA, Canada and Mexico? (If not maybe we could create Mainland North America? Jdlrobson (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It's been the opinion of Wikivoyagers that the US, Canada and Mexico are big and varied enough to merit being their own regions. What specific advantage do you believe creating another layer of hierarchy would serve? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
As I stated... many people combine these places in a single trip. It helps to have an overview of recommended destinations within that region. Printed travel guide books, do this for, I suspect for this very reason as there is demand. I fear I'm now sounded like a broken record.

As a newbie, I have no interest in arguing this point at this time, all I'd appreciate is the background information - I can't find any talk page topics on this subject. It's a shame to see the above "We try to have a good geographic spread, which is why Kingston and Panama City are on the list, despite being not terribly exciting destinations" - travel should always be exciting. Jdlrobson (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the Caribbean and Mainland Central America is that most cities while not exactly boring are less interesting than the nature and countryside. Though we might argue replacing Panama with something like Granada (Nicaragua) which is a city worth visiting in its own right whereas Panama City mostly seems to be a travel hub (I have only ever seen the airport; I was too cheap for the Yellow Fever vaccination to make the most of my layover) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
... but the same applies to other destinations. The Central America destinations Tikal, Corcovado National Park are both covered in Central_America but poor Yosemite doesn't make the cut due to the high competition. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It's covered in both California and USA. We might argue endlessly whether there is too much weight given to the parts of this region that isn't the US Mexico or Canada, but ultimately I think most travelers will actually read our country or region articles rather than the continent(al section) articles. Europe might be an exception to that rule, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jdlrobson: There have been arguments made over the years that a list of 9 cities & destinations at the continent level is arbitrary and confusing, which I think is what your primary concern seems to be for this article. The counter-argument is that in some cases they still provide useful shortcuts - someone going to the Europe article, for example, is very likely to want to read about London, Rome & Paris. See Wikivoyage talk:Continent article template#Cities & OD´s for a past discussion on the subject. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Jdlrobson, don't hesitate to argue points here: That's what "Talk" pages are for. Anyway, I guess I just disagree that it would help most travelers more to put the U.S., Canada and Mexico together into a sub-continental region. But let's discuss pros and cons. You believe that having a U.S./Canada/Mexico region could make it easier to show how to travel between the three countries. And OK, we could list 9 cities and 9 "Other destinations". But what else would be worth mentioning separately? In other words, why is it worth the effort to create such an article and, for example, thrash out which cities and so forth should be covered in it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this is somewhat similar - though not he same - as us not subdividing Germany into any level between states and the whole country. While you could reasonably create super-regions (and many printed guides do for reasons that have to do a lot with the medium), there is not all that much that you could say about any given three state combination but not the whole country and fewer things still that shouldn't rather be mentioned on the state level. Mexico and Central America share many traits. Central America and the Caribbean share many traits. Many Caribbean islands have a lot of US influence and one even is a US territory. There is little that the US, Mexico and Canada have in common that they do not share with other parts of North America and a lot that separates them and would have to be mentioned at the individual country level regardless. Now there are many people that have trips somewhere along the Panamericana and for those an itinerary article might be helpful. And as I just saw, this article already exists, but it could take some editing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious to why Lonely Planet and others do this. I suspect this is related to demand. Usually people that visit the Carribean either go to one destination or island hop. A trip to the USA is more likely to include a trip to Canada then to say Jamaica due to the easy border crossing and for historical reason. Anecdotely I know many people who are too nervous to travel to Central America. Although for whatever reason, although Mexico I would more closely associate with Central America, it seems to be more accessible and more likely to be visited by English and American friends (disclaimer I'm a Brit living in the usa). My father for instance still remembers Nicaragua as a place where a civil war occurred. Hs would never dream of going there however he would happily take a road trip through Canada/USA if the idea was put in his head.

Personally, I think an article reserved for these 3 places would help a lot of people in planning their trips and exposing them to possilities - is that not the purpose of these articles?

I see these regions as a jumping off point for people who say "I want to do a Europe trip where should I go?" Do people when they think like that say "i want to go to North America ?" and in saying so mean Carribean and Central America? I'm not sure. As an exercise I'd suggest asking a few friends "If I said I was thinking of going on a trip to North America which destinations would you suggest as possibilities?" And see what they say. That said im sure it depends on where in the world you live with how you think of the world. Jdlrobson (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

(And fwiw many central Americans might be offended by being grouped in North America which might explain the above topic which carries a similar theme). Jdlrobson (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

While the word "Norteamericano" is indeed sometimes used a synonym of "Estadounindense", I have not talked much about the subject with my Central American friends so I am mostly guessing here, but generally in Central America people talk of "America" (singular) whereas Americans talk of "the Americas" (plural) which might mean two (North and South) but often is intended to mean three (North South and Central) or even more (US+Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America). And what Lonely Planet and others do is mostly do to the limits of their medium. Lonely Planet can have duplicate content between separate guides because few people are going to buy the "Central America" guide and the "Nicaragua" guide. On the other hand our regional hierarchy often works the way that people click them up and down (I know I do that) and is probably partially intended to do so. So duplicate content is not a feature, it's a bug. And furthermore we are not (for the most part) paper. We have few limitations in terms of space whereas lonely planet cannot simply press its five (Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala) Central American guides into one book without cutting a single line. We in contrast can do that, figuratively speaking. You might want to create the article in your user space and we can see from there, because right now we are discussing philosophy and policy more than having any concrete thing to look at. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Philosophically, this is an interesting question. I think the main problem with a Canada-U.S.-Mexico article would be that together they cover probably three-quarters of the land area of the entire North American continent -- and that goes up to 85% or 90% if you include Greenland. So such an article seems like it would be largely duplicative of this article. The alternative would be to elevate Caribbean and Central America to continent level, but they would be by far the two smallest continents on the site. I see that Lonely Planet, in addition to Caribbean and Central America, considers the Middle East to be a top-level region, while we include it in Asia. Ultimately, I think these are differences in style that are inevitable given differences in the projects. Powers (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The only discussion about the inclusion of Caribbean and Central America that I can find (offhand) can be seen in a 2008 revision of this talk page: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_America&oldid=1660064 Powers (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)