Talk:History of the Caribbean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of the Caribbean was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on September 18, 2005.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

This article is supported by the Caribbean WikiProject, which provides a central approach to Caribbean-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please help us by assessing and improving articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Red Links

please use <s> and </s> when links are fixed

If someone with more relavant knowledge could make some stubs as part of CotW this would be helpful. Olleicua 13:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] history stubs

also, even if they've already been started and are no longer red links, several of them are still marked as stubs. --Doviende 17:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American spelling

It's an article about the Carribean, so I assumed the liberty of replacing "centre" with "center". This works, no? Matt Yeager 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No. Caribbean English spells it "centre". Guettarda 02:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Definition of Caribbean

Someone just removed History of Guyana and History of French Guiana from the "History of individual Caribbean Islands and Nations" list. While these two places are not technically part of the Caribbean, their histories are closely linked to the Caribbean and indeed mentioned in the Caribbean article and Portal:Caribbean. I think that we should leave them on the list, or perhaps a different section called "History of other countries which are related to the Caribbean by geography or culture". What do people think?--Kewp (t) 10:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No reason not to revert the change. Done. Guettarda 12:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I just removed them because they aren't in the Carribean (are they closely related ? Yes, but the definition of the paragraph is History of individual Caribbean Nations, so the title has either to be changed or them to be removed).
Furthermore, the word Nations is misused. Martinique and Guadeloupe are obviously not nations (you will never heard in French someone talking about la nation martiniquaise (the Nation from Martinique). Poppypetty 07:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that we should keep Poppypetty's change to "History of individual Caribbean Islands and Nations," but keep French Guiana and Guyana as they can be considered "Caribbean" in some ways, Guyana is easy since it's a country but French Guiana is a French département d'outre-mer which would be more difficult to include under "Islands and Nations". We could add a footnote, however if people thought that it was unclear. --Kewp (t) 14:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd say neither "islands" nor "nations" are ideal. We aren't talking about the history of Cariacou, or St John or Chacachacare. We don't even have a separate article on the history of Tobago. We need a better term. Guettarda 16:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Well this is a little weaselly, but how about "History of individual places in the Caribbean" or "History of selected individual places in the Caribbean"? "Selected histories of individual places in the the Caribbean." Is there any word that's slightly less vague than "places" though? lands? political entities? I don't know....--Kewp (t) 17:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
What about History of Carribean territories ? Not perfect I agree. Poppypetty 02:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"Territories" sounds good to me - Guettarda 02:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Me, too. I'll make the change, then? --Kewp (t) 11:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I changed History to Histories: "Histories of individual Caribbean territories," it sounded better to me since there are multiple histories. Hope this is okay.--Kewp (t) 11:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michener's book

I don't think that we do very much for our credibility when we list a work of fiction as one of two references for this article. I would like to suggest that we ditch it. Anyone opposed? Guettarda 03:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)